Changes in Templates

Hi, I'm currently making some changes over on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment Page. Look in the statistics section. Only 240 articles have the template WikiProject Motorsport on it. I'm thererfore going to propose something (I think this has been discussed a while back). Can every single Motorsport article have the template on it's talk page. My reasoning for this is that some drivers have only the Formula One template on the article. However, surely (by the way, this goes for virtually all articles), they haven't got to Formula One someway. They haven't just been thrown into F1, I don't think any drivers done that. They've gone through other forms of Motorsport. Therefore, surely the Wikipedia Motorsport template is needed for every single Motorsport article?. I'm going to do a vote on this (on this page, plus the Motorsport project and all the child projects) so we can get a decision on this. By the way, don't bother voting on different projects, as only one of your votes will count! Davnel03 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree

Disagree

Leave Comments Here

I'm sympathetic to some extent because I would like to have the stats too. My concern is that we're getting template overload on some pages (not all ours by the way, I was surprised to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia maintain Brabham. Which is nice, cos it'll save me a lot of work!). Is there anyway of achieving the same effect without multiplying the templates? Can we merge templates or something? 4u1e 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, simply import the WP Motorsport protocols into the F1 template and have the assessment process refer to only the one system. As WPMS is a parent project you could argue that this is what we should be doing already. You would lose the F1-specific class/importance ratings, but as Davnel03 rightly states, for many F1 drivers their career in the top flight is but a small fragment of a much longer career. I would argue that we really only need one or other template. By putting the WPF1 tag on an article it is implicit that the subject is also covered by WPMS, just as long as we bin the separate WPF1 rating system, while still maintaining current lists. Pyrope 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. Davnel: We really ought to discuss things BEFORE voting.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia bot which is used does not use the child projects, therefore it only counts the articles that have the Motorsport template, and nothing else, hence why I've had to start putting the Motorsport template onto some articles. Davnel03 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but under Pyrope's suggestion (import the motorsport protocols into the F1 template - so it looks like an F1 template but acts like a Motorsport one) would the bot see a difference? Doesn't it just look for the categories? Is this being discussed at WikiProject Motorsport as well, by the way? 4u1e 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, if the same protocols are used in F1, sportscar, MotoGP etc etc banners, they will all be listed in the same categories, allowing us to prioritise across the parent project rather than with the F1 blinkers on. Pyrope 11:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's being discussed at WP:MOTOR as well so we have a bit of a fragmented discussion going on. With regard to the voting, Wikipedia is not a democracy - It's "method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." This means when a 'vote' is used, one which isn't supported by a comment explaining the vote isn't as weighted as one that justifies it's position. Alexj2002 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am doing this for a purpose, because at the moment, we have absolutely no idea of how many stub articles with have or anything - the only way we can do it at the moment is going through the categories and that's a pain. If we all had it on the WPMotorsport assessment page, you can just go to the page and see how many stub articles we have as well as the importance. It's a much easier way of doing things. You then can see what articles should really be improved, and which ones should just be left alone (if there at FA-status). Projects like Football have a few sub-projects yet they don't have a problem, they just use the main football template. What makes this project different? Davnel03 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first thought we needed a WP:MOTOR, it was from seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby. There, only the WP:Rugby Union and WP:Rugby League banners are used on the articles. It all comes down to the fact that whilst there are subprojects in WP:Football, the WikiProjects that appear in the motorsport WikiProject (e.g. WP:F1) are WikiProjects in their own right, and predate WP:MOTOR. I couldn't care really how many motorsport stubs in total we have because, for example, I don't really need to know the NASCAR figures as I'm not familiar with that series to work on the articles. Same goes for most people on that project that don't want to know F1 numbers. If we could get the number then fine, but I disagree with 'breaking' something else in order to achieve it. Alexj2002 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that most editors seem to be agreed that we don't want more templates, what do others feel about how we want the stats on article importance and quality compiled? Davnel's proposal is intended to allow us to get a consolidated set of results for all motorsport articles (Pyrope's suggestion above would I think allow us to do this while maintaining different templates for different child projects). Alternatively we could maintain the current situation where we have different stats for different projects - F1, NASCAR and MOTOR at present. As Alex suggests, would this not be more useful? There's not much overlap in most cases - there will always be exceptions like Mario Andretti and Juan Pablo Montoya, but I think we can live with that. 4u1e 7 March 2007, 09:41

Nationalities for UK drivers

We've recently experienced another spate of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish drivers having their nationalities "corrected". As many people know, we have a consensus that they should be listed as "British", since that is the nationality recognised by the FIA. I wonder: would it be worth adding a comment into the wikitext near where the nationality is specified (in the lead paragraph and the infobox) for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish (and English?) drivers saying "If you are considering changing this driver's nationality, please discuss it on the talk page first" or "This driver's nationality is specified as British because that's what the FIA recognises" or something like that, to try to avoid people making the changes in the first place? DH85868993 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could try, but it probably isn't going to work. The kind of fly-by nationalist that alters these pages usually isn't interested in a nationality consensus, and they will probably just delete the notes as well, just look at some of Bretonb's archived "discussions" with some. Still, may be worth a try. Pyrope 08:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Has it worked for the F1 article's external links? 4u1e 7 March 2007, 09:43

I suspect it would stop a few editors who don't realise there's a guideline on it, and believe they're making WP more accurate. It wouldn't stop the 'fly-by nationalists' that Pyrope was describing though. Alexj2002 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Prioritising F1 bios for WP BIO template and him

Right. One idea and One question for you clever lot this time ;-).

Idea

When setting the priority of the WP BIO template for F1 driver's articles, I usually do this:

Top - For those drivers who have won four or more titles, excluding Ayrton Senna

Judging by the WP Bio assessment page, I am seriously wondering whether any F1 driver deserves Top billing. They specifically limit the number of Top rated articles to 200 across the whole of Wikipedia. In addition, they must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, and frankly, no F1 driver has. Also, Top billing requires WP Bio project approval and agreement.

Of the rest, maybe Senna and Schumi might qualify for High ratings, purely because of their impact within F1, but I think that these are possibly the only two. The rest are either Mid or Low, with some non-notable F1 drivers (say, fewer than 30 appearances or so) not even qualifying for Low grade. Pyrope 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but putting into a context of just sporting personalities, then Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Fangio should be "top" priority. See the category they fall under to see the other "top" priority sportsmen and women.--SkullyCollinsEdits 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or no. There are thousands of well-known sporting personalities, and I am assuming that the notional 200 limit applies to this subdivision as well. To include all of the people you suggest would lock up 2% of the whole project total, just for F1, which is only a part of global motorsport, which is only a small part of televised sports, which is only a small part of the whole sporting canon. Maybe shift my above assessments up a notch, so Senna and Schumi could be Top, but no more than these two. I'm afraid, much as I hate to type it, Joe/Josephine Public isn't going to have a clue who Fangio was. Pyrope 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've demoted him down to "high"...I guess it's better then having him on "low", which he was on prior to my assessment :-P. So looking at it, I've promoted four Motorsport related bios to "top", those being: Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Valentino Rossi, are those okay? I have a slight feeling Prost is next on your "hit list" ;-). --SkullyCollinsEdits 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

;-) I don't have a hit list, I just feel that we ought to restrain ourselves when rating the importance of articles. As motorsport fans we will naturally have our priorities angled toward practitioners of "our" sport. Personally, I would be quite annoyed if any one sport project nominated more than a couple of top articles. Pyrope 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand Pyrope and I agree with you completely on that. It's just that when I was making this "technique" above, I didn't take into account the rules you mentioned. --SkullyCollinsEdits 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed over on the Motorsport talk page as major changes are going to be made to the templates, which might be affected by the argument. This should be discussed over there. Davnel03 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the BIO template, not the MS template in this topic? Pyrope 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mid - For those drivers who have appeared on the podium" -- Tiago Montiero is of Mid importance in the grand scope of F1? I guess my point is that your system works in too much of a concrete manner. Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve would be on the Mid range too, despite being important figures in Formula One. Guroadrunner 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyre icons when there is only one manufacturer

It's been suggested by Howard the Duck, Talk:2007_Formula_One_season#Tyres that when there is only 1 tyre manufacturer in a particular season, i.e Bridgestone for 2007, that the individual red B's, etc. are removed from each page as there is only the 1 manufacturer. I disagree with this as someone looking back over the history of F1 would be interested to see how the tyre wars, etc. have developed (not to mention masses of work changing each page, when there is nothing wrong with the current system). I've also posted here as this is something that doesn't just affect 2007, but the F1 project generally. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Davesmith33 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving it. Yes it's redundant, but it takes virtually no space and maintains consistency. It has, by the wya, been known in the past for a tyre manufacturer to return part way through the season, although I admit there is virtually zero chance of it happening this year. I suppose next year is a slightly different matter, because then only one manufacturer will be permitted. 4u1e 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And the single tire manufacturer rule can change back in just a few years, knowing the instability of F1 rules at the moment. The359 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can some of these be considered deletion, I mean A Season With McLaren is a non-notable TV series, the Alonsomania term is a group of fans and the Williams results article is already listed in the WilliamsF1 article? I think these should be considered deletion. Davnel03 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A Season With McLaren was broadcast on a major broadcaster (BBC) so I'd class it as notable. Alonsomania - doesn't seem to meet any criteria so I'd say it can go. BusinessF1 Magazine - articles about it on GrandPrix.com so I'd say it can stay. Triple Crown of Motorsport. Bruce McLaren biopic - multiple secondary sources cited in the article. Finally, I believe the WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results were not in the main article for a reason, that is they make it overly long. Alexj2002 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown of Motorsport certainly deserves to stay, it is well established that the Big 3 races are the Monaco GP, Indy 500, and Le Mans, or debatebly an F1 World Championship instead of just a Monaco GP win. The359 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Alonsomania should be deleted. I mean, if it stays, what's to stop other users making similar pages for Senna and Schumacher who are/were just as equally popular with Formula One fans? The Business magazine I think should stay as it is one of the major publications on the UK, I guess. Triple Crown of Motorsports is a very pretigious feat to achieve, I think only Graham Hill has achieved this, can anyone confirm it? When I first heard about, I was pretty interested in the movie and I wouldn't mind going to see it...when it comes out (possibly) next year! The Williams results table I think should have a seperate article, because the article's structure goes: Origins; History; Results; Activety outside F1, Now having an entire table of F1 results would mean a hell of a lot of scrolling down to do just to get to the activety outside F1 section, which I think is incovenient (sp?). Anyway, those are my opinions on the subject(s)...--SkullyCollinsEdits 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, if Williams get their own results page, shouldn't teams like Ferrari and McLaren have their own results page?? Davnel03 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably, yes. The reason Williams has, is because it was being worked on for GA status at one point as an attempt at getting an model constructor article (although it failed). Ferrari and McLaren haven't yet had this treatment. Alexj2002 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mugen Motorsports is the best article to link to, the Honda one is far inferior with regard to Mugen engines themselves. I guess the other point matters less so long as you end up at Mugen Motorsports anyway, so either method would be fine in my opinion. Bretonbanquet 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I went with the latter option, i.e. I linked "Mugen-Honda" to Mugen-Honda (which redirects to Mugen Motorsports). That way if we ever decide that "Mugen-Honda" deserves its own article, or the place where these engines are described changes, we don't need to update all the links again. Also, I only updated the F1-related links; there were numerous F3000 and sports-car-related instances of "Mugen Honda" linked directly to Mugen Motorsports; I didn't update them. -- DH85868993 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

References to specific races in infoboxes

The sample populated infobox templates indicate that references to individual races (e.g. "Debut" in template:F1 team) should take the form of: [[1991 Belgian Grand Prix|1991]] [[Belgian Grand Prix]]. I propose that they should just link to the specific race article, e.g. [[1991 Belgian Grand Prix]]. If we adopt this change, I don't think we would need to update all the existing infoboxes immediately; we could just update them the next time we edit the article for other reasons. Thoughts? DH85868993 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. In fact I had the same thought today. It would be nice to sort this out if people can state their opinions :) Bretonbanquet 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The current system seems a bit superfluous.--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed it's annoying clicking on it and going to a general page on the event rather than the race report. Alexj2002 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the year itself is of specific importance (say, birth year) there is absolutely no point in Wikilinking it. Pyrope 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, this has been merged into MasterCard Lola. I would prefer for it to be kept as a separate article. Any thoughts?--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're dead right, I'm going to split it back up now as it hasn't been discussed on this project. I think it doesn't matter if it was only in one race or one season, it should still have an article. Davnel03 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, the user in question, JackSparrow Ninja isn't even a member of this project. Davnel03 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That it hasn't been discussed on this project, or the user in question isn't a member is irrelevant really. This WP doesn't own any of the articles it supports. Alexj2002 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree that the articles should be separate, but Alex is right - none of the articles belong to anyone and the agreements we reach here are always open to question. Consensus is the important thing - so if JackSparrow (who does edit F1 articles fairly regularly, by the way) feels strongly about it you'll need to reach an agreement with him. Well, that's what I think, anyway! :D 4u1e 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's not get too posessive! In any case, as it stands that article is seriously underwhelming. Most of the text refers to the team's performance and not the design of the car. Unless someone fancies doing some expansion work on it I really can't see how to justify its retention as a separate article. A paragraph in the main team article would be plenty. Pyrope 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Pryce FAC

Please can you guys leave your comments (hopefully with the word "support" before the comment ;-)) here. Thanks.--PhilltalkEdits 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver

Many of the F1 driver articles start off with "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) Formula One driver." Isn't that a bit limiting, considering that (virtually) every F1 driver would also have also raced in other categories, and that, in many cases, a driver's F1 career is only a minor part of their overall career? (Recognising that for other drivers, their F1 career is a/the major part of their overall career). Might it better to write "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) racing driver. Nerk competed in Formula One from XXXX to YYYY, contesting N Grands Prix, scoring W wins and P poles, etc"? Note that for current drivers, there is a choice between "Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver" and "Fred Nerk is a racing driver. Nerk currently races in Formula One for the ZZZ team". Thoughts? DH85868993 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Curse you for a logical man! :D You're probably right, although many current F1 drivers have had fairly short careers outside F1, Kimi Raikkonen for example has raced far longer in F1 than he did in the feeder series, and really are notable only for their F1 careers. 4u1e 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, didn't this come up three or four months ago? Under the guise of an argument about nationality attribution... I have been altering all the driver articles that I edit to the format that you propose. Even if they are pricipally known for driving in F1, their generic occupation is "racing driver". By the way, there has to be a song lyric with that title just waiting to be written. Pyrope 09:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Grand Prix points in the 1930's

Hi all. Please note my question at Talk:European Championship (auto racing). GP racing of the 1930's is not formula one per se, but it's its historical predecessor, so I hope some of you could have some ability to dig up the right information on this. John Anderson 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an on-going project of mine to sort these pages out. A lot of the numbers on the pages are wrong. For instance, the table doesn't even mention Hermann Paul Müller in 1939 despite the fact that he actually scored fewer points than Hermann Lang. I'm drafting out a new European Championship page because I feel the first one is factually incorrect in several places, and the formatting is not that great. Readro 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, it's nice to hear that. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. John Anderson 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My update has gone "live", so to speak. It's by no means as extensive as it could be, but I felt I had enough to get a representative page out. I'd welcome any additions you, or indeed anyone else, can think of. Readro 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Race Reports

Is their any major way you should set out race reports? Some of the reports I've seen (from recent time) don't seem to have a proper format. I was recently working on 1994 and 1995 race reports and set it out in the same way each time. Here's how I did it:

Yeah, but I must admit, that report looks very vague. Could we change it? Look at 1995 Pacific Grand Prix for an example of mine. Davnel03 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the example report as vague, just an adequate report of an uneventful race. It simply isn't needed that every single race has so many separate subheadings if, frankly, nothing of importance happens. I actually think that trying to dictate a universal structure might be harmful in trying to explain why a particular race is notable. One reservation that would have about using the example that Davnel03 proposes is that the article makes poor use of language. It is nowehere near the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia encourages and is shot through with non-NPOV comments, hearsay and unattributed quotes. I would prefer that articles were written well, even if that means that they don't have so many nannying subheadings. Pyrope 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of the language is poor, maybe I was doing it in a rush as I'm trying to clean up all race reports to a proper, well-presented format (which most of them are not). Davnel03 12:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on the language and the proper way of referencing sources is one thing – we could all help out there and amend things, in stead of critizing others for lack of language skills. For the format OTOH, I think Davnel03's idea is not that bad, but I agree with Pyrope that we shouldn't dictate so much, as every race is not equally important or interesting. One thing I'd like in a race report, is a list of the overall standings in the World Championships and how it was changed with the outcome of the race. John Anderson 14:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ChicaneF1 have something along those lines. What do you think of it?Pyrope 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on that. Most season summary pages have a race-by-race points table, and we already have a proliferation of tables on race report pages. Pyrope 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really what I had in mind, there's only arrows up and down there. I was thinking more of a table showing the full standings before as well as after the race. John Anderson 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but your idea I believe will take up tonnes of room on each individual page - again I don't believe it's necessary. Only my opinion. Davnel03 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, did you write the following bit of that 1995 Pacific GP article: "After the race there was a kerfuffle as Schumacher complained to Hill off camera, and said "no problem" on screen. Damon pointed this out, exposing a side of Schumacher which many in F1 do not like - the public face does not correspond with his behaviour when the cameras are turned off. Michael was annoyed at having been caught out."? Alexj2002 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who wrote it, but it has to go because it's not NPOV. Readro 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it does matter who wrote it, when it is word for word the same as this: http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr579.html - I realise that you're trying to clean up race reports in a rush but copying almost verbatim from copyrighted websites just creates a lot more work. Could you go through Davnel and remove any copyrighted material you've added to race reports. Alexj2002 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, yeah, it does matter. I didn't realise it was a copyvio. Readro 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked out your suspicions, and you're right. Now we have a big problem because all of the 1994 and 1995 race reports are virtually word-for-word copies of the GrandPrix.com articles. Readro 16:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! See WP:COPYVIO, which says delete the content of the offending page. I guess we can keep the race results, which are not copied from there anyway. Re-writing the words from scratch is probably as quick as any other option anyway. Legal accusations of plagiarism are not an idle threat here, since we're in direct 'competition' with GrandPrix.com. 4u1e 20 March 2007, 16:37

I would have deleted the content but I didn't have time to check it and delete it. I was in between doing some CFD runs and had a few minutes. Readro 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The race results & some opening text would have been there before the copyvio content, so suggest can I suggest we just revert to an edit before the copyright violations came in. I'll start compiling a list of what appears to be taken from GrandPrix.com Alexj2002 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it isn't quite that easy. Other stuff, such as the infobox might have been updated after the copyvio text has been inserted. At the moment, I'm simply removing the race report sections of the affected articles, and replacing it with the last clean version that's in the article history. I realise this might still lose some legitimate content, it's still available in the article history so can I kindly ask people who find their own text has been lost to restore it from the article history. Alexj2002 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did take most of the text from the website, but I've tried to edit it, and add further bits of information. I really don't think it should remove it. What use is it to someone just seeing a race page, with just results on it, without any background information? There isn't any use. Somebody wanting to know about a 1995 race, would find zero information, what does a set of results say? Doesn't give you the picture of the race, does it? People can add information, but no one felt like doing it, so I thought I'd do it. I'm sorry if it's come from another website, but I'm about 99.9% sure most of the text on WikiPedia is from other websites, but like mine edited into their own version. Rewrite the lot into your own words, but deleting it get's rid of a lot of information. Davnel03 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't added anything! You've gone to one of our competitors and taken their writeup and added it to this site. Imagine if BBC News's website just copied ITV F1's reports. You can't take someone else's work and just change bits. It's a derivative work and as such copyright of the original author still applies. 99.9% of the text from other websites? I know for a fact that every word I've written (excepting quotes which are clearly acknowledged as such) is original and I'm sure the same can be said for many of the other regulars on WP:F1. It says at the bottom of the edit page "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted.". Someone has now got to spend time going through and get rid of this stuff instead of working on articles. If you aren't going to write original stuff, don't bother. Alexj2002 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hhhhmmmmmm.... That's what I was doing, by the way, if I wasn't going to add anything, who was?? Someone who watched F1 in the 1990's could of added a paragraph or two, but, oh no, they never. Articles have got to be useful, a set of results is useless, articles must go into detail. The reports, at the moment are useful, but if you take off the report, there useless, to me and everybody else. By the way, are you going to add your own little report. I didn't think so.... Davnel03 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It takes time to write an original article. The two race reports I've contributed heavily to (1994 San Marino Grand Prix and 1997 European Grand Prix) both took many hours of work from me personally as well as a lot of time from others. It took over a month of heavy activity to get them up to Featured Article and Good Article status respectively. The reports you've done might be useful but they're illegal! Alexj2002 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, not many people remember the smaller races, so that's why I couldn't find many sources on the internet. So what should I do? Could I keep the copy of the texts and heavy edit it and find lots more references off the internet? Would that be considered illegal. By the way, all you lot could try and find sources off the internet! Also, people still talk about those two races. I've never heard anyone speak about 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, have you?? Davnel03 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy editing isn't good enough. A clean start needs to be made. You can find out facts from other websites provided you cite them, but you must write the article in your own words. Race reports on other websites are often NPOV. The race report on Wikipedia should provide a description of what happened during the race but no opinion. Find out what lap a particular crash or incident happened on a website then write a paragraph yourself saying what happened and who was involved and when it happened. Also, I didn't contribute to the two articles I mentioned totally from memory! I read through some reports to jog my memory of what happened first. Alexj2002 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, please understand that we all have our own interests and we contribute as and when we want to (and have the time to!). All of the regulars here make large numbers of edits pretty much every day, across the whole massive range of the F1 project, and probably in many other areas of Wikipedia too. 1990s race reports are important, but who says they're more important than 1970s race reports, or getting good articles on significant racing cars, or on each of the world champion drivers? Alex is certainly not the right person to accuse of not contributing to 1990s race reports. 4u1e 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one to add - 1995 Formula One season is also heavily plagiarised, but this one has been edited more so it's difficult to know what is plagiarised and what isn't. I think we might just have to revert it back to an earlier version. Readro 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't copied and pasted that one, it's fully in my own words, along with a huge amount of references. Davnel03 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. From your article - "but DAMS bosses wanted to buy Larrousse and run the team themselves." Now, from GrandPrix.com - "and the DAMS bosses would prefer to buy Larrousse and run the team themselves." This is just one example. I'm afraid that putting a website down as a reference does not entitle you to copy their content. Readro 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, seems like you guys have gone and deleted my stuff, when I've just found a few more sources you can use, for example with 1994 Japanese Grand Prix, along with the text already there, you can get things from:

Bad luck, you wasted your time. All you did was to faff at the edges of the copyvio material, most of it is still there. Simply altering the odd line, changing a few adjectives, and substituting proper names for nicknames doesn't make it "your stuff". I am also guessing that IP 86.20.53.195 is something to do with you too? If you want to make amends, can you just get over yourself, delete the copied material and START FRESH. One thing that nearly made me laugh is that if you crossref the copied material, the Wiki and source pages are so similar that Google can't generally tell the two apart! Only nearly mind. We simply don't have time to sift every article, check and remove all the copied material line by line. It will all get deleted. Pyrope 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether this will be reliable or not, but you can use The Formula One database for the qualifying results. Furthest I managed (or could be bothered :-P) was the 1973 Dutch Grand Prix - Coincidently the next article which will undergo some treatment because there is a massive array on Roger Williamson's accident in The Lost Generation. Oh and can I also ask which images maybe appropriate (ie, not too graphic) for the section concerning Williamson's accident, any suggestions? --PhilltalkEdits 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at the race report from the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix last night, using GP.com and a couple of other sources as refs. I think what I produced is fine from a copyright point of view (the trouble with race reports is that there's only a limited number of ways to say most things - do point out if I've veered too close to the original anywhere). It took about an hour and a half to do - it's not great (too magazine-y in style), but it meets the bill, I believe. The point is of course, that I re-wrote from scratch, not by editing what was there already. This isn't really my cup of tea, but for those who are interested in this area, it can be done. 4u1e 21 March 2007, 13:14

When to use F1-stub

Should all F1 driver stub articles contain {{F1-stub}}? Or only if they don't already contain another stub template? Consider Franco Comotti, which contains {{Italy-autoracing-bio-stub}} - should it contain {{F1-stub}} as well? -- DH85868993 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, yes it should as he was a Formula On driver as well. Davnel03 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you for some reason only want one stubmessage, I think the F1-stub is better than the Italianautoracerstub, since it seems more important that he was a formula one driver than that he happened to be Italian. However, best is to use both. John Anderson 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree all F1 driver stub articles should contain {{F1-stub}} even if they already contain other stub templates. I just wanted to gather other people's opinions. -- DH85868993 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As stubbing an article also adds that article to the relevant stub category, each stub ought to carry a template for every relevant interest group. Pyrope 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll leave you to decide if we can make these articles first.--PhilltalkEdits 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'd be inclined to say that the content that would go into 2006 F1 season controversies page could be directly put into the 2006 Formula One season page. Not sure about the red car rule article, and I'm neutral about the 1975 air crash unless you can make it substantial. Guroadrunner 10:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The Arkley air crash could have an article, if it can be made substantial enough, else let it be a section in the article about the Grand Prix closest to when it happened or in the article about the Embassy Hill team. The "red car rule" could be a trivia comment in the Ferrari article. The season controversies should have its place in the season article, unless the relevant information is so extensive that an article of its own could be needed for better clarity. All in all, I don't see the need for articles on these subjects, but information about them could very well be presented on Wikipedia anyway. John Anderson 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The "red car rule" theory is completely speculative and entirely unencyclopedic. Comments on 2006 should go in the 2006 season article. Arkley air crach might make an interesting article, provided that there is enough information to make a reasonable page. Perhaps take a look at the aviation wikiproject and see how they deal with air accident articles, I have a feeling they have some degree of standardisation already. Pyrope 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Spyker team template

The (old) Spyker team template has a medium orange header over an orange box.

Previous/next races in F1 race report navbox

At the bottom of each F1 race report, there is a navbox listing the previous/next WDC race and the previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix. Currently, there's some inconsistency in the population of the "previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix" fields, for the case where the previous/next race is a non-championship event. Consider that 1950 Monaco Grand Prix identifies the non-championship 1948 Monaco Grand Prix as the previous race, whereas 1963 Mexican Grand Prix specifies "-", even though there was a previous, non-championship event (in 1962). Similarly, 1950 Monaco Grand Prix lists the next race as 1955 Monaco Grand Prix, skipping the non-championship 1952 event. Do we want non-championship races listed in the previous/next race fields or not? Note the complication that many non-championship races don't currently have articles, so if we include them in the sequence, then it may not be possible to "step through" all instances of a particular Grand Prix using the navbox, whereas if we limit it to WDC events only (all of which have articles), then it will be. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since in the navbox we write the direct links to form the list, perhaps we could write "race(non-chsmpionship)" for those currently not included. It also would let us chronologically include the non-WDC forays at Brands Hatch if they are not included yet. Guroadrunner 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1948 Monaco Grand Prix should have a link there because it was the previous running of the Monaco Grand Prix. Putting a dash implies there were no previous Monaco Grands Prix, when that simply isn't true. Readro 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just because it wasn't a championship event doesn't mean that it wasn't there. And the Mexican example should have a link to 1962 as I put one there! Pyrope 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Prix TFA

My only comment would be that the TFA director reckons that maps don't work well on the front page. Perhaps you replace it with an appropriate photo? AlexJ 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Porsche motorsport article

On the discussion page for the Porsche article, I have proposed that the (rather sizeable) "Auto racing" section be split out into a separate article. The idea has received some support, so now I'm trying to decide on the best name for the new article. If you have a view on this, please contribute on the Porsche discussion page. P.S. I realise this is somewhat outside the scope of WP:F1, but this discussion page is somewhat more active than WP:MOTOR's (where I have also posted the same information). Thanks. DH85868993 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed this page several times. The page lists every single Formula One articles on Wikipedia. What strikes me most are the red (dead) links that we have. I also noticed only one user seems to be editing it. I think we should try and create the dead link articles. I've made a start on one or two - only to be struck with a speedy deletion tag! If you can look on the page and try and create one or two articles, that'll be great, so the dead links will go down! Davnel03 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You were "struck" with db tags because you didn't provide proper or adequate context or information on notability. Wikipedia is not capable of hosting pages on every single detailed minutiae of each and every topic covered. We in the F1 community already have many and excellent database and specialist interest sites on the web if the details are what yanks your chain. If you can provide interesting and informative articles, something that you would like spend time reading, on any of the suggested topics (that's all the "dead links" are!) on the related pages site then by all means write them, but we certainly don't "need" one-line inanities. Pyrope 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a great temptation to create all the "missing" articles as soon as possible, isn't there? But I agree with Pyrope that it's probably better to hold off creating a particular article until we can create one with some substance. -- DH85868993 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I started the BRDC reports before there were many non-Championship reports, and I basically followed the way that they are usually noted in results databases and on the Czech wiki. However, since the numbers have grown on here you are right in that they don't generally follow the convention that seem to be growing for race years to be the distinguishing title factor. I would be in favour of renaming for those reasons. However, it might be useful to first discuss what we are going to do about some of the Tasman and South African races that occasionally ran one side of Xmas, and at other times on the other. This sometimes resulted in two races in one calendar year, followed by no race the following year, so in these cases a simple year-based distinction isn't appropriate. By retaining the race numeration we solve these problems. Any thoughts? Pyrope 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of doing what the A1GP project is doing - call the season something like 2006-07 Tasman Series and then all the races would be given a 2006-07 style prefix. Readro 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That would work for races that were attached to a championship series, but not for the standalones. Also, by doing it that way you start to define the race in terms of the championship, which isn't the way that racing generally evolved. Just look at the EC races from before WWII; they were really separate races, participation in which allowed the driver to collect Championship points. This is also the way that F1 worked up until the end of the 1970s, although by that time the FIA was starting to strongarm the category into its current championship-led format. An A1GP race has to be defined in terms of an A1GP Championship, because without the series the race wouldn't exist. This isn't true of older F1 and GP racing. Pyrope 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Wasn't really thinking there. Maybe just a 1 or a 2 at the end if there are two races in a year would work. Readro 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question. Do we want the International Trophy race reports (and other non-championship F1 races) included in the relevant "19xx Formula One race reports" categories? What about races which are mixed F1/F5000 affairs? DH85868993 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's an easier question to answer, that answer being yes on both counts. Nothing in the category headings that limit them to just WC events, and mixed F1/5000 events are still F1 events. Pyrope 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is real. I've only just created the page, but it is referenced so I don't know why you are questioning its existence. I know it lacks detail - that's why I marked it as a stub. Readro 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible changes to F1 driver infoboxes

On the assumption that the "Last Championship" fields in template:F1 driver refer to the last completed Championship season (i.e. for current drivers, they refer to 2006, not 2007), would it be worthwhile adding current Championship position/points? Noting that every current driver's article already needs to be updated after every race (to update the "Latest race" field).

Comment - The second idea would require either a) a dedicated person, or b) a "x championship points as of the X Grand Prix." notification, which clutters things up. Guroadrunner 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

C: It has been discussed before, and as with so many things we decided that it is a good idea but that it would take a lot of work... so it withered and died. This would be easy to do for template:Former F1 driver, and we could make it hidden until the field was filled. For template:F1 driver we already have the "latest race" field, so it would only need eight additional updates for each GP weekend, the points field could be named "Career points" or somesuch. 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Action: I have actually gone ahead and made the change to template:Former F1 driver as this is a fairly well-constrained parameter in these cases. The field is hidden until filled and so shouldn't cause any problems with pages until the data is updated for each driver. I have left template:F1 driver as I think we need some agreement (as detailed above) about whether we need 1) just total points to date; 2) points to end of last complete season; 3) points to end of last season and this season's current tally; 4) total and current season points; 5) etc etc etc.... Pyrope 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with the "Last Championship" fields for constructor infoboxes too. Currently McLaren and Renault's infoboxes contain 2007 championship position/points, but all the others contain details for 2006. -- DH85868993 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed McLaren and Renault back to 2006 as well, so now they're all consistent. -- DH85868993 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1993 Sauber engine naming

Does anyone know any reason why, in the 1993 F1 race reports, the Saubers are listed as just "Sauber", rather than "Sauber-Ilmor" (which is how they appear in 1993 Formula One season) ? I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before going to the effort of updating the race reports. -- DH85868993 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The engines were designed and built by Ilmor, but were badged up as Sauber, in the same way that Ilmor engines were badged as Mercedes before the Germans bought the company out. So the official records list the cars as just Sauber. Pyrope 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've just come accross this article. As you can see, it looks a total mess. I've attempted to edit it, but it just wrecks it more. Can somebody try and edit it - at the moment we have two non-registered users editing it. Davnel03 11:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

McLaren MP4/ or McLaren MP4- ?

It might be one of the slightest possible things, but I've just noticed a bit of inconsistency in McLaren car article namings. Some have: McLaren MP4 / followed by the car number as the article name, while some have MP4 - as their name. Is there any proper one to use, or does it not really matter?

A few days ago, I created a article on the McLaren MP4-20 article, only to reliase it already had article, but under the McLaren MP4/20 name, which is very confusing.

It was "/" from MP4/1 to MP4/11, then Ron decided to change it to "-" for MP4-12 onwards. DH85868993 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the McLaren website I make the first hyphenated car the MP4-16. Although even McLaren seem to be fairly flexible about which to use, and various parts show both MP4/5 and MP4-5 in use, as well as MP4/15 and MP4-15. Official entry lists make the change at about the MP-14, although even here I still find the MP4/14 on the entry list, while MP4-14 is only given in the results classification. Some independent sites make a change, others stick to "/" right up to the present car. For aesthetic reasons I prefer the / use, but then I'm a kid of the '80s and that just looks more "McLaren" to me, evoking heady days of the MP4/4. Pyrope 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've decided to nominate both Forti and Toyota as GA-Candidates. I feel that both articles are at GA standard, and with one or two tweaks, they would definitely get GA status. Davnel03 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented about this on the category talk. It's slightly ridiculous I feel. Forti had TWO cars. A separate category is not required. mattbuck 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about the discussion a while back, sorry about that, but when I looked at the main category first time (Category:Formula One cars, I didn't know whether they should of been like that, hence the reason why I put them in seperate categories. I admit, it might be ridiculous to have teams that were only in F1 one or two years, but for other (Honda etc.) there should be categories, even if only three or four cars have articles on Wikipedia. Davnel03 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just made a couple of adjustments to the template to allow the name and nationality to be hidden where multiple templates are used. As things were, the formatting forced the F1 template to be the top one, even where F1 was the minor part of a driver's career. One consequence is that the defailt value for the name field had to be removed. I'll be skimming through articles to spot where this may have been used (very few), but even where the default value may have been used all that will have happened is that the name will be hidden, and no disfiguring errors will be seen. One question remains to be sorted though:

The subtitle World Championship Career is simply inadequate. We must always assume zero prior knowlege from our readers, and this title begs the question... World Championship of what? Other common boxes use Motorcycle Grand Prix Career and 24 Hours of Le Mans Career and so are a little more descriptive. I know we discussed the suitability of the former Formula One Career title before, but I'm not sure we resolved it to best advantage. I think the best option would be to adjust it to Formula 1 World Championship Career. I know that this isn't technically accurate in all cases, but it covers what most of the world understands by the term. If anyone else has a neater summary then please post your suggestions and thoughts here. Pyrope 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're exactly right, Pyrope. I wondered how long "World Championship career" would last when I wrote it. I agree that "Formula 1 World Championship career" isn't exactly accurate in all cases, but I think it's the best compromise. Personally, I'd probably actually prefer "Formula One World Championship career" (I've tested it and it fits without causing line wrap). -- DH85868993 09:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer the full wording, as you surmised I only used the 1 as I reckoned it would wrap. But if it doesn't, then no worries! Pyrope 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Action: On the back of the above I made the change to Formula One World Championship Career. I know its kinda quick, but the discussion isn't over and it lets us see how it looks in practice. Pyrope 12:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any dissent, they've all been updated. DH85868993 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing of team articles

Of the contemporary "big 3" - Ferrari, McLaren and Renault, the referencing of these articles is dire. Now since I'm bringing this up I'm open to "well why don't you fix it then?" That would be fair. However I'm just bringing it up to see if I can get some help referencing them. Mark83 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but so are many other articles. All the regulars of the Wikiproject are trying their best to get F1 related article up to standard, we haven't got round to those three yet. I'd be quite happy to lend a hand, suggest we try McLaren first as it seems a fairly good article and I'd like to get it up to GA/FA status at some point. AlexJ 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would counter that the Ferrari and Renault F1 articles are equally sound. However I have no problem with picking McLaren as our first effort for GA status (at least). Mark83 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a reference in the McLaren wikipedia article to an piece in the December 1997 issue of F1 Racing magazine, which says that the only way for McLaren to be any stronger was if they recruited Michael Schumacher. If by chance anyone has this issue of F1 Racing, could you try and find the article title, page number and author if possible. Thanks, AlexJ 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, I threw all of mine out not long ago! Readro 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-World Championship Formula One

We have lots and lots of information about formula one in Wikipedia, and most of it is very exclusively focused on the world championship. Of course, since the 1980's there hasn't been any formula one races which was not part of the world championship, but still, the sport and the championship are not synonyms.

I'd like to have more information about the non-world championship formula one races. E.g., what about the national championships which existed in South Africa and the UK in the 1960s and 1970s? Do we have anything written about these?

I also think the 'main article', Formula One, should have more information about non-WC Formula One, especially in the section on history. Not like now, when it is not much more than a side note. There should also be more information on this in the year articles.

There is some non-championship F1 information in Wikipedia - check out the contents of Category:Formula One non-Championship races. I think many of us would like to see more, but like everything else, it takes time. Any contributions you could make would certainly be appreciated! DH85868993 14:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A year or so ago I made an effort to put some more info on non-championship F1 into the History of Formula One article, and some of us have tried to squeeze it into the main F1 article as well (there's some mention at the start of the history section and DH put in a section explaining the difference between F1 and the WDC a while back). I suppose we could re-label the History section as 'History of the WDC' and then have another small section for 'Non-Champ F1'. The start of the article would then go something like:

Lead

History of Formula One

World Drivers Championship

The return of racing

The 'Garagistes'

Big Business

The Manufacturers return

Outside the World Championship

European non-championship racing

South African championship

British Aurora championship

DH's explanation of the difference between the WDC and F1 could be worked in there somewhere as well, probably as the intro to 'Outside the world championship'. That the sort of thing you meant? 4u1e 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and been bold now! I've edited the F1 article using material cut and pasted from History of F1 to the structure outlined above. What do you think? Revert if it's not to taste. Cheers. 4u1e 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I should probably throw in my two pence at this point. I've been working on the pre-WC season articles. Personally, I think they should be blended seamlessly with the WC articles to represent a continuous flow of time. Regardless of whether the name Formula One was being used or not, there is an identifiable highest tier of international motor racing that can be traced back to 1906. However, I've noticed that some of the WC articles treat 1950 as the beginning of everything and exclude anything before that. I think that at the moment, the average Wikipedia user would have a hard job navigating to the earlier years and non-championship pages, and I'd like to suggest a possible rethink so that non-WC stuff isn't neglected. It's all Grand Prix racing at the end of the day. Readro 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we need to make the links between now and then (going back to 1906) much clearer than they are now, but I do feel that 'Formula One' makes a good solid category of its own, which is widely understood (OK, possibly widely misunderstood) and relatively easy to define and I don't think it should cover pre-war material as well. I think the links to the further past are probably best done in the way that we have for the Monaco Grand Prix and some other articles, by giving the full history of whatever we're talking about. I suppose you could regard F1 as a daughter category of 'Grand Prix motor racing' and include more of a summary of F1 in the GP article as well, though 4u1e 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the non-champ stuff, user:Davesmith33 has removed it, along with some other stuff, as 'nonsense'. I'm not entirely sure whether that's a comment on the quality of my writing, or ignorance of the existence of non-world championship F1.;-) Anyone else got views on version? 4u1e 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It improved the article - I don't know why it was called nonsense. I've put it back in again because it's not nonsense, it adds information which makes the article more complete. Readro 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it may just have been a mistake in correcting other dubious additions.4u1e 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very good - it's just along the ideas I had in mind. For more details on what is now in the main article, specific articles should be created. One thing though - in the present structure of the article, I think the section Distinction between Formula One and World Championship races should be moved up to be just after the History section. What do you think? John Anderson 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it (ah, the power of cut and paste...although I think I probably wrote much of what I've pasted, in its original form at least). I'm not quite sure what to do with the section on the distinction between F1 and WC races. I've partly copied it for the new section, and while logically it should live with the history section, does that make too much 'historical' stuff before we get to the current form of the sport? 4u1e 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Come to think about it, maybe the section could even be before the historical section. It is a main factor to understand what Formula one acctually is, i.e. that it is a sport, not just = the races in the Formula One World Championship. John Anderson 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section would need to be shorter if we do that. DH - do you mind if I edit it down a bit and move it as John suggests? 4u1e 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first wrote that section, I envisaged it as a sort of "footnote", that most people wouldn't read unless they were confused, e.g. if the went to 1957 Indianapolis 500 and thought "Why was this (non-F1) race part of the World Championship?" ... (click link) ... "Oh, I see..." By all means cut it down and relocate it, as long as the salient points are maintained:

first F1 race was in 1947 (or was it '46?); WDC started in 1950

not all F1 races were part of the championship

the championship was not always exlusively F1, with specific mention of Indy 1950-60 and F2 races 1952-53

One thing to note is that numerous articles link directly to that section, so if the section title changes or the section disappears altogether, those links will need to be updated.

Another option, which has just occurred to me (and which I therefore haven't thought through fully) would be to convert Formula One World Championship from a redirect to a proper article, and explain the intricacies of the World Championship there. That would probably also serve as a suitable target for all the links which currently point to the "Distinction" section. DH85868993 04:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your salient points DH, I think most of them actually already appear somewhere in the History section, so do we need to move the section at all? 4u1e 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (Hah! I've just realised what the numbers in your name mean! 4u1e 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Porsche in motorsport

Following discussion on the Porsche talk page, the information in the "Auto racing" section of the Porsche article has been split out as a separate article called Porsche in motorsport. But rather than changing all the F1-related instances of "Porsche" which currently link to Porsche to link to Porsche in motorsport instead, I propose the creation of a further article: Porsche F1 (initially a redirect to Porsche in motorsport), and linking the F1-related instances of "Porsche" to that (similar to the way in which all F1-related instances of "Alfa Romeo" link to Alfa Romeo (Formula One)). My rationale is that if the place where Porsche's F1 involvement is described ever changes (e.g. in case Porsche in motorsport gets too big and is split into separate articles) then we only have to update Porsche F1, rather than updating all the links. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the theory, but could we have a better title please? How about, following a developing convention, Porsche in Formula One? The title needs to be a bit more discursive where you are discussing a concept rather than a single entity. Pyrope 09:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary tables for races which haven't always been F1/WDC

A couple of issues/questions related to summary tables for races which haven’t been F1/WDC events throughout their entire history:

1. Many/most "race" articles (e.g. Australian Grand Prix, German Grand Prix, etc) contain a table of past winners. Most of these tables highlight years where the race wasn’t part of the WDC with a pink background and European Championship events with a cream background. But note that this doesn't always give you the complete picture, e.g. it doesn't tell you that the 1952 Monaco Grand Prix was run for sports cars. What do people think of the idea of adding an extra column (or two) to these tables specifying the formula to which the race was held (e.g. "Formula 1", "sports cars", "Formula Libre", etc) and championship status? If there’s support for the general idea, then we can discuss specifics such as:

one column or two

what to label the columns

allowed values in columns (e.g. "F1" or "Formula One", etc) and whether to wikilink them

whether to retain the pink and cream backgrounds

whether to add the new column(s) to races which have always been F1+WDC (e.g. Bahrain Grand Prix)

2. Some of the "race" articles contain "Multiple wins (drivers)" and "Multiple wins (constructor)" tables. On the Australian Grand Prix talk page, User:GK1 has asked whether these tables should only include F1 events. My own personal view is that all wins should be counted, regardless of formula or championship status. But I’d be interested in the views of others.

Re 1: I think an extra column could be handled without any problem, those tables always look kind of long and skinny to me anyway. We could really go to town on these, but the only bit I have felt is missing is the 'category' (with championship status already being covered by the shading. I'm agnostic on including it for races that have always been F1/WDC affairs.

Re 2: I think that the wins tables should include all victories in a race, which is what Readro and I agreed to do for Monaco Grand Prix.

There might be complexities in interactions with other Wikiprojects here, the one that comes to mind is the Long Beach Grand Prix, which to my mind is the same thing as the United States Grand Prix West, but currently has a separate article. From memory they used to be the same article, but they were separated (not very clearly) by WP:AOWR a while ago (I think). 4u1e 09:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we might have to rethink the colours - Las Vegas Grand Prix looks really confusing at first sight. I support the idea of an extra column for the formula. Maybe that way we could get rid of the colours in the table. Readro 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the colours are a good idea, let's keep them. The category could perhaps be better noted with a foot note? John Anderson 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes for categories would work well where there haven't been many changes, but where there have been lots (some of the American races) it could get very confusing! 4u1e 06:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Race Reports

Hi, as you may of noticed the Australia and Malaysia look like proper race reports, as I strived to update it as soon as possible straight after each session was over. I thought I'd let somebody else do it for the Bahrain round (after all seeing a list of results tell you nothing). So guess what? When I come online, I see absolutely nothing! What is it? I'm stupid or something?! Ain't race reports meant to be updated. Or can't anybody be bothered to put in a simple description of what happened using a few refs (like what I did after Aussie + Malaysian practices)[2]. Cos, to tell you the truth, why should I waste my time, when other people can't be asked. You look on the history page of these articles. Yes, most of the edits are mine, not yours. A simple description doesn't take you long, get a source (ITV F1) and your done. Not like climbing up the Eiffel Mountain is it? Get your act together, and edit the damn page, I quit. Davnel03 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? There's no obligation for anyone to do anything at all. If you feel it's a waste of your time, then don't edit the pages! I edit because I enjoy it - if it ever became a chore I would stop doing it. It's great that you've contributed some race reports, but no one said you had to. One tip - flaming the entire WikiProject is not going to win you any friends. Readro 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As Readro says, and as I think I've said several times before: We all do what we want. We do appreciate the work you have done on the first two races, but if you're not getting any pleasure out of it any more, then I suggest you don't do it. Someone else will, eventually. 4u1e 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I had an idea to improve the Race Reports to GA standards, I would do them now, but I prefer waiting about 5 races to get a picture of how the race in question has shaped the championship. That and the fact we need to give people (mostly on Flickr) some time to upload images, that are hopefully on the appropriate CC license. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skully Collins (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, am I missing something, or has the 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix not happened yet? How can a race report be written on a race that hasn't been run? AlexJ 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Davnel was suggesting that the race report (articles) could/should be updated following each practice session. -- DH85868993 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Davnel03 has since been indefinitely blocked. He is a known sockpuppeteer so please keep your eyes open for the same patterns of editing and abuse from new users. Pyrope 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how I found this article (I think while searching for the Bahrain GP), but it looks way speculative and possibly unnecessary.

Recently articles like the 2008 Green Bay Packers (football team) went through an AFD, and I suspect this 2010 article might be too far out to justify. (The 2009 article has some useful data in it, for comparison).

Nothing but speculation in the article. Does not warrant an article. Readro 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the addition of the Korean Grand Prix to the F1 schedule, so it's no longer "nothing but speculation" :-) I don't see much point in deleting an article which will almost certainly need to be recreated within, say, 6 months. Does anyone know of a reference for the article's main paragraph ("According to Max Mosley and the recently-approved agreement between the FIA and GPMA...")? -- DH85868993 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No Germany GP for 2007, European back in place

I'm just wondering whether we should wait a little while for "confirmation" of this before making too many chnages - I'd hate to change all those links just to have to change them all back... DH85868993 10:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, it's on the FIA website as the European Grand Prix and on f1.com as the European Grand Prix. It just seems odd that no one else has reported it. Readro 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Negative on the copying of last years code as it was originally down as the European GP if you remember [[3]] It was then edited to the German GP and has now been changed back again in the last few days on both fia.com and f1.com so that's pretty much confirmed I think. Also, http://www.nuerburgring.de/ has it now as the Großer Preis von Europa. Davesmith33 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, my mistake I didn't read the first link. Yeah agree with a move to 2007 European Grand Prix in that case. AlexJ 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is the German Grand Prix. Why should they change it? fia.com has it as Germany. John Anderson 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, fia.com has it as Europe, and I provided a link for verification. Readro 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the redirects last night. Kingjamie 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the press release AlexJ contributed, it is Germany. There has been no press release since that address the matter of changing the names, hence I think the reference to Europe is a mistake. The German GP has a much longer tradition than the European, so I can't understand why it would be European. The only reason for the use of "European" before was to be able to host two races in Germany (and before that two races in the UK). John Anderson 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Both f1.com and fia.com have it as the Grand Prix of Europe and I'm sure they know what they're doing. All of the information on both these official sites has been changed to Europe so as long as that is the case, surely the same info should be here? Davesmith33 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, cite a source explicitly saying the German GP has changed names to European GP, then I'll believe it. John Anderson 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Progress scores

When I updated the 2007 F1 car articles following the 2007 Malaysian GP, I added a note under the results tables indicating that the points total and championship position are "progress scores" following the Malaysian Grand Prix. Would people like to see the same thing in the 2007 driver and team articles, or is it self-evident? (I'm even happy to remove the note from the car articles if that's the concensus). -- DH85868993 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think something to indicate how up-to-date points and other stats for current teams,drivers,cars etc. is needed. Perhaps we could have something like they do on the Rugby player infobox (see Gareth Thomas (rugby player) for example) but accurate as of a certain GP rather than a calendar date. AlexJ 13:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco

Does anyone know the legal technicalities of the EU tobacco ban? Specifically how Altria are still allowed to display their Marlboro advertising. Even though its now "subliminal" in (I think) all races but Bahrain, no one can argue that its aim is to promote cigarettes.

On the other side of the argument, what are Altria gaining? Companies sponsor F1 teams because they want to see their logos on race coverage and sports bulletins. While most people who follow F1 know exactly what the "barcode" branding is for, infrequent or new viwers will not have a clue. Further Altria apparently have a "contingency plan within the new contract in case the regulations are tightened to outlaw the use of design images associated with tobacco brands. This would allow the company to promote the non-tobacco brands it owns on the Ferrari car, such as those in the Kraft Foods range." Surely it would be better for Altria and F1 [and this is where I veer off improvements to articles and into POV] for it to openly advertise a non-tobacco brand than Marlboro. Mark83 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of the legal situation but according to many grandprix.com articles over the last few years Marlbro and the other tobacco companies signed an agreement with each other on Sept 11th 2001 to give up sponsorship of sports by the end of 2006. Not sure why they decided to ignore it, or why the other companies let them away with it. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19036.html --Don Speekingleesh 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari don't actually own the image of their car, they sold it to Philip Morris (owners of Marlboro), and they then sell the sponsors space to third parties (eg Shell). By doing this they don't actually fall foul of the EU law which prevents EU companies from tobacco advertising anywhere in the world if it will be seen in the EU. Vodafone moved teams to McLaren because they were actually paying Marlboro and not Ferrari for space on the car, which went against their 'corporate responsibility' mandate. However the Sept. 11th 2001 agreement between Philip Morris (Marlboro), BAT (Lucky Strike, 555) and JapanTobacco (Mild Seven) stated that after Decemeber 1st 2006 they wouldn't sponsor things that "require above-average physical activity" and "will receive exposure on TV or radio". They would appear to have broken the agreement.AlexJ 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As if to answer my question grandprix.com have just run a story Marlboro explains tobacco liveries. That says that Philip Morris' rationale for continued sponsorship was that the agreeement was not implememented by the other parties. However given that Japan Tobacco (Mild Seven) withdrew announcing it was "in order to keep its commitment to the International Tobacco Products Marketing Standards, an agreement made in September 2001" and that BAT (Lucky Strike/555) withdrew and announced it was "honouring a commitment to leave F1 by the end of [2006] - a move consistent with the International Marketing Standards which it voluntarily subscribed to in 2001" you'd have to say that Philip Morris is inventing an alternative reality!

Alex, I remember reading that Ferrari "sold" the entire car to Philip Morris and they then resell space. However I'm unclear as to how that doesn't violate EU law. I mean if you sell advertising space to a tobacco company chances are they'll use it for tobacco advertising!? Mark83 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's down to a loophole that they've found in the law. I'm not sure what it is, but basically it would appear if you sell the image of your car rather than a space for a logo on the car directly then it's OK. The law would appear to be a ban on sponsorship rather than a ban on showing tobacco logos. Personally I think it goes against the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and is detrimental to the sport when it has otherwise all but shaken off it's tobacco image and is attracting technology and financial industry sponsors. AlexJ 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Drivers Classified Position and DNF - how to record

If a driver does not finish a race due to retirement but is classified with a position by the FIA, how should this be shown in the results tables? A case is Anthony Davidson in 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix . FIA website shows him a DNF but classified in 16th--> FIA results. My preferred option to to show him as finishing in 16th. MonkeyMumford 08:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't use DNF. If they retired without classification we use "Ret", if they are classified then they get their classification spot. Drivers who finish but aren't classified get "NC". The race reprt tables are large enough that more information can be recorded: the classification is shown, but his lap numbers and finishing time summary shows that he completed only 51 laps and suffered engine failure. Pyrope 09:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New source for non-championship races

I thought I'd share this with all of you because I've found a great source that I hadn't heard of before. Project 009900 is part of f1-images.de and contains extensive data on all the non-championship F1 races from 1946 onwards. It's a German website but is very very easy to navigate. You won't be disappointed with this site, I assure you! Readro 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, that is impressive, thanks for the tip off. Just one quick caveat: from the results that I have (briefly!) cross referenced with other sites/publications, the Project 009900 data appears to have been database derived. It therefore suffers a little from that most common of database problems: shoehorning. By that I mean that while the informaion is correct in a broad sense, it may not actually show what was on the entry lists at each specific event, and team names etc. have been reduced to generalisms. As long as you bear that in mind it could prove very useful! Pyrope 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source of non-championship info, with which people may already be familiar: www.silhouet.com -- DH85868993 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On a (loosely) related topic... anyone got any news of what's up with ChicaneF1.com? I feel like I've had an arm cut off! Pyrope 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Official motorsport and performance division of automakers

I've been thinking a lot about whether or not to include Scuderia Ferrari in the category. I thought of it as a company division and not just a racing team like the other F1 racing teams; but I maybe wrong. I've based my idea on Renault Sport which is a company performance division and the Renault F1 which is only a racing team same asTRD and Toyota F1. If Scuderia Ferrari proved to be only a F1 racing team and not as a company division then we could take it off the category. But I think we could not include the other F1 teams because they cannot be considered a subsidiary of their parent companies. Or are they?.Jpogi 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see this being nominated for CfD before too long, so don't spend too much time worrying. Pyrope 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They are to be issued the week of the British Grand Prix, so I think that one's fair enough. I've altered a few others I didn't like,though. -- Ian Dalziel 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies guys, I've tried to only makes changes where it seems clear what was intended. I've tried to leave ones where it's not clear - mostly non-F1 related stuff using 'grand prix' as a generic term for 'race', but feel free to shout if anything is definately dodgy. --Worm 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dropped points

I'm currently trying to achieve consistency between List of Formula One drivers and the individual driver articles (not a trivial task - assistance welcomed!). One issue I've already encountered is "dropped" WDC points. These are currently handled inconsistently across the project:

most driver article infoboxes haven't yet had the Career Points field populated, so there's no clear pattern there

I propose using the "championship points followed by total points in parentheses" format throughout. Thoughts? DH85868993 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently did the Wikitable for the Alain Prost vs. teammates section of his article, and changed the format from Total points (dropped points) to Dropped points (total points) as I felt the points that were used to decide the championship should be the more important. Be good to hear others opinions on this. AlexJ 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AlexJ, although I prefer DH's use of the term "Championship Points". Pyrope 10:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition of British F1 fields to template:Former F1 driver

I notice that template:Former F1 driver has recently been updated to add fields for the British F1 championship. Another approach would have been to have develop a separate infobox template for the British F1 stats. It probably doesn't matter much either way, unless we think we are likely to add stats for other F1 championships (e.g. South African?) in the future, in which case we should probably decide now (i.e. before too many driver articles have been updated) which is the better way to go. Thoughts? DH85868993 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this would best be hived off into a separate tamplate, how about Template:UK F1 series driver?. After all, some drivers participated in the British series and not the WC. Also, if we were to maintain the pattern then why not build all the possible driver twmplates into one? That could get very confusing in the long run. Pyrope 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken that into account - take Guido Daccò for example. I just thought it looked neater to tag it onto the bottom of the existing infobox. Having infoboxes stack up looks messy in my opinion and seeing as the new fields are normally hidden, I didn't think it was a problem to do it this way. I tried a separate infobox and it looked a mess. Personally, I don't see a problem. The template is for their F1 career, thus it gives a more accurate picture if you display all of their F1 racing. F1 is not exclusively the world championship. Readro 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last point is certainly valid, as I have been arguing for some time. However, not all motorsport is F1, and we certainly aren't advocating building one uber-template for all drivers ever to sit behind the wheel of a racing car. I personally think that the infobox borders nicely delineate the separate record sections, and as they are all unformly formatted they look quite smart (see Martin Brundle for instance). The problem comes when trying to provide a pro forma for easy field identification. If we go down this route (WC, British, SA etc all in one form) then the requsite pro forma will be huge, and quite tricky to navigate as some fields will have to be duplicated, triplicated etc for each series. Pyrope 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure I agree. Personally, I think while the infobox shouldn't contain everything the driver has ever done, the infobox is an F1 infobox and should take account of all F1 entries. Regarding the amount of fields - for the most part nothing has changed. If you look at the template page you can see I've added an optional list of fields to add for British F1 Series drivers. For most cases the standard pro forma will be fine as the other fields will be hidden. Also, whoever is editing the page will have the same amount of fields to fill out whether it is in one infobox or two. Readro 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a list of runners up. When does it stop? Would a list of third place finishers be OK? In my opinion, only a list of champions has any merit. The other list should be merged into List of Formula One records as suggested. Readro 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Driver infobox widths

We're now have several driver articles with multiple infoboxes. Would anyone else like to see all the driver infoboxes the same width, so that they "stack neatly" - contrast Olivier Gendebien with Julian Bailey. Current infobox widths are:

If we would like to have them all the same width, I'd recommend 24 em as a good compromise. BTW, I realise this discussion should probably be on WP:MOTOR, but this talk page is more active. DH85868993 08:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, but will obviously have to be negotiated with the relevant wikiprojects. I'd also go with 24 em. I think we can change the F1 driver template without too much discussion, but I would make a couple of extra tweaks at the same time. These would be to reduce the width of the field headings by replacing "World Championships" with simply "Championships", and "2007 Championship position" with "2007 position". These would allow the first and last race fields to be shown without wrapping, making the box format clearer and reducing its page length. As the box is already headed "World Championship Career" the reduction in the text would lose nothing in meaning. Pyrope 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyrope, I've copied your comment (omitting the F1-template-specific stuff) to the main discussion at WP:MOTOR. I hope that's OK. BTW, I support your proposed amendments to the F1 driver template. DH85868993 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz in Formula One

Following this earlier discussion, I think I now understand Mercedes' (somewhat convoluted) latter-day F1 involvement. With respect to the wikilinking of F1-related instances of "Mercedes(-Benz)", I think there are two ways we can go:

I think your second idea is a good one. I second it. John Anderson 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that in the past few days, a few F1-related instances of "Mercedes" have been changed to link to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport rather than Mercedes-Benz. So, I thought it would be worthwhile reviving this discussion, in the interests of possibly avoiding some future rework. Note that since the above discussion, we also now have Lancia in Formula One. DH85868993 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Picture?

this picture from the 1998 British Grand Prix article. While the image caption in the British GP article says it's Mika Hakkinen and Schumacher battling for the lead (also as the image title), the body of the image classes it as David Coulthard! Zooming in on the picture, shows the picture as it being Coulthard not Hakkinen. Am I right?Neldav 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain it's Coulthard. The helmet is overexposed and blurred somewhat, but it is possible to see the Scottish flag design. In addition, Coulthard and Schumacher battled for second place early in the race, whilst there was never any close racing between MS and Hakkinen.--Diniz 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Coulthard, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it one way or the other! 4u1e 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. ;) The official end-of-season review (VHS) shows this exact move, but I can't find a clip on youtube. Looking at the lap chart, Coulthard passes Schumacher for second place on lap 5, with the order behind them as Alesi, Villeneuve, Frentzen, Hill and Irvine (who are also visible in the photo). Remember that Schumacher and Hakkinen never battled for position; Schumacher passed Hakkinen later on when the latter ran wide and across the grass at Becketts after the SC period.--Diniz 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually hard to tell, and we'd need someone who remembers the race well (seemingly like Diniz to get proper confirmation. You see, both Hakkinen's and Coulthard's helmets were blue and white/silver, but Coulthard's is recognized as being in the form of a Scottish-flag cross. The blue on his helmet was darkened when he joined Red Bull Racing. But even on zooming in on the image, it is hard to tell. Lradrama 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the race results too, and Hakkinen actually qualified on the same row as Schumacher and finished 22 seconds behind him. Coulthard qualified 4th and spun off mid-race. Does that help, knowing that Hakkinen was actually in a better position to be in the position in this picture? The Ferrari was actually faster and the McLaren started infront, which means this could be Schumacher passing Hakkinen around the outside? Again, the lack of a clear image so we can't see the helmet as good (see above comment) is the flaw here. Lradrama 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've just checked the lap chart. Coulthard passed Schumacher on lap 4 while Alesi was running fourth immediately behind them followed by Villeneuve and Frentzen, which is the exact order seen in the picture. Readro 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I've just remembered - in the 1998 season you could distinguish between the two McLarens in the non-tobacco races by the logos on the front wing - Coulthard's were that orangey colour and Hakkinen's were black. Readro 12:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Top research. Well done! Mystery solved then. This is a picture of David Coulthard passing Michael Schumacher in the 1998 British GP with Jean Alesi running behind.Lradrama 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrows A23

Zero76 has created Arrows A23 as a redirect to Super Aguri SA05. In the Super Aguri SA05 article, it says that the chassis was based on the Arrows A22 of 2002. But 2002 Formula One season indicates that Arrows used the A23 in 2002. Does anyone know which is correct? If Arrows did indeed use the A23 in 2002, then I think Arrows A23 should be a proper article about that car, not just a redirect to the Super Aguri article. Thanks. DH85868993 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Formula One season states that the SA05 is based on the Arrows A23, in the notes at the very bottom of the article. The359 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DH on this - The fact that the Arrows chassis link redirects to something that was based on the chassis isn't really a good IMO for a redirect. --PhilltalkEditsReview this GA review! 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep - will probably just look like an error to a reader unfamiliar with those cars. 4u1e 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question, Super Aguri was rocking the A23 - see the articles in this archive from F1Racing. Short history was Arrows went bust, Minardi bought the cars and considered them for development of the PS04, rejected them, sold 'em to Super Aguri, and they became the SA01 SA05 until a new car came around the 2006 French GP. Incidentally, they were designed by Mike Coughlan, now of McLaren. Guroadrunner 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the SA05 was based on the A23's chassis, but had a new monocoque and new bits at the back.

Update Prompted by this conversation, I've:

* Added the A23 to the lede (should assauge some folks).

* Put a lot of references in for the SA05 and Mike Coughlan pages.

* Added info about how Super Aguri really wanted to race the truck"Honda 2005 F1 car" (you might want to put in the model number in as a wikilink).

* Added that in contrast to the A23 the car had a new monocoque and "new rear end engine parts" (unconfirmed fact - what is a "new rear end" mean to you??)

Comment - Why name Zero76 like he/she did something wrong and then ask "well what are we going to do about this then"? Perhaps there was a fair rationale why it was done. Probably a hardcore F1 fan if they even knew about the Arrows A23 to begin with.Guroadrunner 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest Zero76 had done anything wrong; I was just confused by the conflicting references to A22 and A23 and trying to work out whether A23 should be an article or a redirect. Sorry if it came across differently. DH85868993 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my issue was that the post named a user, and since they haven't been a part of the "visible" community (making them in some ways an outsider to the conversations here), it felt like naming them wasn't necessary. (Sending them a welcome actually might be nice; they seem like a hardcore fan and an asset to the WikiProject). Not a big issue. Good catch with A22 and A23 discrepancies in the articles. Guroadrunner 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that both cars should have their own distinct pages. It is not right to state that the Arrows car and the Super Aguri are the same as they were run by different teams, ran different aerodynamic features and had different results.86.157.213.118 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dale, do you know if the A23 raced in 2002? Somewhere in the back of my mind, I think it did, but I'm not sure. It's been bugging me for a while, but I don't have the time to properly research it. Guroadrunner 07:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, this is really my fault for making a typing error when creating the SA05 article. The A23 was the 2002 Arrows chassis and should have a separate article, perhaps with a "further use" section.--Diniz (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've converted Arrows A23 from a redirect to an article in its own right. It's quite stubby, so any additions/corrections would be gratefully received. DH85868993 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

leave a msg on my talk page to remind me and I'll try to get on it. -- Guroadrunner 02:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1980 Canadian Grand Prix

As some of you may know, there was a pileup at the start of the 1980 Canadian Grand Prix. The race was stopped and restarted. Derek Daly and Mike Thackwell did not take the restart. As a result, there are differing views as to whether or not Daly and Thackwell actually "started" the race, and whether their results should be listed as "Ret" (retired) or "DNS" (did not start). While there have been a a bunch of similar situations throughout the history of the World Championship, this one is particularly significant, because if Thackwell started the race, then he is "the youngest driver to ever start a World Championship race"; if he didn't, he isn't. Due to this special significance, I think it's worth us (as a project) forming (and documenting) a consensus on the results of this race. Wikipedia currently lists the results for both drivers as "Ret" and recognises Thackwell as the youngest driver to start a WDC race. In terms of other sources:

www.formula1.com lists the result for both drivers as "Ret / Accident / 0 laps"

Forix lists the result for both drivers as "Accident"

www.gpracing.net192.com lists the result for both drivers as "Ret"

My vote would be for Wikipedia to remain consistent with the above-listed sources. Thoughts? DH85868993 08:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the retirement option. Although in the case for the 2001 Belgian Grand Prix the race was stopped when Luciano Burti had that horrific crash, but that was around five laps into the first start and the 1980 Canadian Grand Prix, from what your saying, happened at the very start of the race. So, what should we do for races in the case of Spa '01? Sorry I've answered your question with another question. --PhilltalkEditsReview this GA review! 08:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

An anon editor has been arguing this point at talk:Mike Thackwell also. For what it's worth, his interpretation of the rules is logical (the first start was cancelled, so Thackwell and Daly should be DNS, not RET. The only problem is that the sources don't say that. The closest I've found online to a source saying that is the Autocourse online archive results for that race, which give both drivers as DNS/RET. Whatever that's supposed to mean! Note also that Thackwell's career summary there does list one DNS for him, as well as raising the 'conundrum' of whether he started officially or not. I think the answer for the Thackwell article is to explain both points of view, but note that most sources list him as RET, not DNS. I suppose that would mean that in the race results we should give 'ret' but footnote to say that Daly and Thackwell should possibly be DNS and explain why. Unless anyone's got access to official FIA results for that race? Their online archives don't go back that far and www.formula1.com gives them both as ret (although it contains many other errors...). 4u1e 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we argue this before? Getting a sense of deja vu! I think it should be Ret as he took the first start. Putting DNS I think is misleading if a driver did take a start that was red flagged. Ret is my preferred option. Readro 12:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ret" is also my preferred option, as I outlined at talk:Mike Thackwell. "DNS" is misleading and the vast majority of the sources state "Ret". The theory behind the "DNS" assignation is sound, but it hides the story of what actually happened. I'd go for "Ret" with an explanatory note. Bretonbanquet 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that, but it would definitely need to be footnoted. Ret may be a more descriptive version of what happened, but it doesn't change the fact that the "race" Thackwell was in never officially happened. Pyrope 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But does anyone know WHY the FIA decided to completely annul the first start in these cases? It seems bizarre to try and wipe these first starts from the history books, basically pretending they never happened. People like Riccardo Paletti were killed in first starts, they're a vital part of the history of GP racing.. and it would hardly be difficult statistically to include them in official results. Or am I missing something? Bretonbanquet 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it matters why the FIA regulations annul the original start. The fact is that the original race does not count and therefore only the actual race should count. The actual Grand Prix did not involve Thackwell or Daly as they did not return for the start of the race. Therefore they did not start the race. They may have retired from the initial race, but that race's results were annulled and therefore their official result should not be retired. I do not believe it matters what the other sources say, the facts are what I have stated here and in the Thackwell talk page. The drivers did not start the race and that is that. I fully intend to state these facts in the articles.86.157.213.118 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with the "facts" as any one editor believes them to be. It is concerned with what is verifiable. I did not say it matters why the FIA regs annul the start, I was merely asking if anyone knew why. For you to say it does not matter what other sources say implies you do not understand what Wikipedia is all about. You have changed articles to show unsourced information, so they will always be reverted. The concensus here is verging away from your point of view, and if that continues, it would be better to go along with it. Bretonbanquet 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RET with perhaps a note to explain they didn't take the restart would be my take on it. Tthey took a start, even if it was the event was then stopped. reset and re-started (as opposed to stopped and continued). AlexJ 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are always the most important thing. Wikipedia is based on factual information and to not represent these facts because they do not have sources would be foolish. It is not just my opinion, it is the truth derived from FIA regulations. I do not dispute that Thackwell and Daly took a start, but they did not take the start in the official Canadian Grand Prix. The results should show this. I do not see why so many are attempting to refute what actually happened. FIA regulations annul the initial start and the race which happens and counts takes place after the new start. These drivers did not take that start and therefore did not start the race. Again, fact prevails. 86.157.213.118 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not about facts. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. AlexJ 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any source for a "DNS"? The "Official" F1 website lists a "Ret"for both Thackwell and Daly - http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1980/392/ - so I just don't see how we can prove otherwise. I know this site is lousy with errors, "Kevin Cogon" listed as DNQ on that same page, whoever the hell he was... maybe they mean Kevin Cogan... but the sources are stacked up in favour of a "Ret" (with a few "Ret/DNS" here and there) and so far I can see nothing that says "DNS". Bretonbanquet 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If this stems from a debate over whether or not Thackwell is the youngest F1 driver, could we not change it to the youngest driver to QUALIFY for a Grand Prix? Even if he did not technically start the race, he is still the youngest person to ATTEMPT to start a Grand Prix. The359 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My take on the issue is this - let's look at what DNS stands for - Did Not Start. In this case, they did start, so DNS is very misleading. Also, the regulations were very different back then. The rules used to state that the race would restart with only those cars who were still running when the race was red flagged. The first start was not annulled, and those cars that retired on the first start were listed in the results as such. Annulling the initial start is a recent development. Readro 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How recent, Readro? I know that Niki Lauda is fond of making cracks like "If that race never happened, wft happened to my ear?", so it seems the rule was in place in 1976 at least? Pyrope 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Never have I heard such a preposterous statement. If Wikipedia is not facts, then it is not an encyclopedia. The last time I checked that is exactly what Wikipedia is. What AlexJ is suggesting is that there could be the a terribly incorrect statement on Wikipedia and as long as it has sources then it can stay. That is preposterous. Truth is paramount in an encyclopedia. For the last time, DNS is not misleading, it is what happened. There can be a note regarding why they are classified as DNS, but the fact remains that they did not start. I am well aware what DNS stands for. It means a driver did not start the Grand Prix, and that is exactly what happened in this case. When I changed the Thackwell article, bringing this whole situation into question the entire point was indeed to state that he was not the youngest driver to start a Formula 1 race. If we were to state that he was the youngest driver to attempt a Grand Prix, that would be fine (after checking to make sure that no other driver was younger in practice or qualifying) but not what this debate is about. Readro is mistaken as any car which could make it back to the new start would start the race, including cars involved in the initial accident. Also, I am quite sure it is not a recent development as Pyrope points out. This again brings me back to my initial point. Thackwell and Daly did not start the official Grand Prix and should be listed as such. 86.157.213.118 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon - you are incorrect about Wikipedia. As Alex has said above, the guidelines are very clear that when it comes to it, we are about verifiability, not truth. If you think about it, it's quite a logical position, because generally speaking if something's true, it ought to be verifiable. Your point is logical, but for some reason the results are not recorded in the way that logic suggests. We don't know why that is - perhaps the FIA or the race organisers didn't follow the rules correctly. It wouldn't be the first time that had happened! If you are right, and the official results do show Thackwell as DNS, all you have to do is find a source that says so, to make it verifiable. I've been looking and I haven't found one so far, much to my surprise. As I said above, the online Autocourse is the closest, but it's rather ambiguous.

As a side issue, I think we should restrict ourselves to representing the official results as best we can, and not introduce new categories like DNRS. Anon's basic point is correct, if a driver doesn't take the restart they would normally (by the rules, however illogical it may seem) be recorded as DNS. 4u1e 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. This is why James Hunt was disqualified from the 1976 British Grand Prix. He had retired from the initial start, but the organisers let him take the restart due to extreme pressure from the crowd. After the race it was determined that he shouldn't have taken the second start and he was disqualified. Readro 12:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe not normally, although that race isn't a very good precedent for anything, as the rules weren't followed - Hunt shouldn't have been allowed to start, by the book. (Silly rule, but there we are...) 4u1e 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is a conflict between expedient rule writing for application to a dynamic sporting event (a simple annullment makes it much easier to restart than having to calculate time differentials etc etc, if there is still time to rerun the entire race) and the logical recording of sporting history (Lauda was injured in the 1976 German GP; Thackwell did start the 1980 Canadian). As events turned out the races that they started didn't count for anything, but at the time the flag fell they were very much official starts. To deny these drivers their achievements is churlish at best, and obscures true historical events. So, as I stated above, while the official record (wherever it may be) might record DNS for those drivers so affected, that doesn't reflect the true events. We are sailing quite close to a full blown philosophical discussion here, probaby entitled "What is truth? Discuss." Pyrope 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone turns up some official results giving Thackwell as DNS, I don't see we can do anything other than have it as Ret. <shrug>. It's all very well arguing what should have happened, but without official results to back it up it's original research. 4u1e 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. re Pyrope's 'What is truth' comment above: I think this is why 'verifiability not truth' was chosen as the gold standard for Wikipedia. It's pointless arguing about what is or should be true; we can usefully research what the official sources actually say, however. 4u1e 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on now, this is ridiculous. Lauda was injured in an aborted start for the German Grand Prix and Thackwell and Daly had an accident in the aborted start for the Canadian Grand Prix. Both of those things happened but because those starts were aborted, the results were annulled. The official results (whether they already do or do not) should list as DNS as they were not able to take the second and official start. I am not attempting to deny anybody anything, just state the facts. The original starts may indeed have been official at the time, but in the end they were not and unofficial results should never be recorded over official results. As for the official source, there is not one. Formula1.com is just a website which lists results and is not the official resource for the results. If the FIA official website listed the results, then that would be official. So since we do not have an official source, I think we should be able to state what actually the results were. If anything, a DNS better represents what happens as, well that is what happened. A note stating that the drivers could not return to the start after a first lap accident should be in place, but we can not deny that these drivers did not start the official Grand Prix. After all, we should record the official results. If I were to write to the FIA requesting a clarification of the results of the Grand Prix events in question, would I be able to use that information to support a change in the article?86.157.213.118 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the only thing that seems to matter here is a source and not actual facts: Grand Prix Stats. This website shows that Mike Thackwell's first start was the 1984 Canadian Grand Prix.86.157.213.118 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just read through the official FIA sporting regulations and came across something unexpected. Article 155 of the FIA Official F1 Sporting Regulations states "When the race is suspended, neither the race nor the timekeeping system will stop." This seems to indicate that an aborted start does count as part of the race. So according to FIA rules, a driver who can't take a restart is listed as Retired. I was somewhat surprised by this but it is official, so we should abide by it. Only someone who doesn't take the original start is listed as DNS. Readro 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is only in the case of the race being stopped at any point into the event past the first lap. When the race is stopped on the first lap the results so far are annulled and the Grand Prix will start anew from full distance. As I believe we have gone over... What you are referring to is not the same situation as clearly shown by the other information in that part of that document. 86.157.213.118 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another page from the source I documented above states both Daly and Thackwell as DNS in the 1980 Canadian Grand Prix and explains why. This is exactly what should be listed on Wikipedia: 1980 Canadian Grand Prix. I hope you all agree now that we have a source. 86.157.213.118 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. You wanted us to accept the official regulations as the basis for the decision, and now you say that this non-official website is enough. I don't concur. I cite Forix and Formula1.com as sources which are contrary to yours, and I would argue more reliable. Also, I can't find anything in the sporting regulations about it mattering when the race is stopped. If it is clearly shown in the sporting regulations then please state a reference to the paragraph that states this. Just for reference, I got the article number wrong before because I was looking at the 2008 regs by accident. The relevant paragraph in the 2007 regs is article 41.4. Readro 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well first you would have to realize that those regulations you started were not in effect in 1980... Even looking back on the 2000 Sporting Regulation (here) you will see under article 155 to 157 that I am most certainly correct. Now I unfortunately do not have a copy of the 1980 Sporting Regulations (obviously), but I can tell you that they included the same information with regards to restarted races as the 2000 version. As for the sources issue... Since we have no official source, logically all unofficial sources can be used and considered equally. Initially it was requested of me that I supply a source for my statements, which I did. Now that I have, it is not good enough... I think I have adequately shown that not only am I correct in terms of the Sporting Regulations, but that also a very reliable source (which grandprixstats.com is) agrees with my statements. I hope everyone sees that now. 86.157.213.118 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not all sources can be considered equally. Grand Prix Stats is a website made by Marco Helgert in 1997. Forix is the statistics branch of Autosport, a publication that has been printed weekly since 1950. Formula1.com is owned by FOM, commerical rights holders of the sport for over 20 years. As such we have to look and decide which is the most trustworthy and that would be Autosport. Also it should be noted that the second most trustworthy of those three (The official F1 website) agrees with this. AlexJ 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to look at which sources are most reliable. Private sources are not as reliable as ones owned and run by large motor sport publications, such as Forix, which is run, I believe, by Autosport. www.formula1.com likewise is owned by FOM, I believe. These two sources are infinitely more relaible than anything else. To not accept this is to be somewhat blind. Given that there are no "official" results, we must take the most reliable sources available to us, which in my opinion, are these two. Bretonbanquet 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to AlexJ - I appear to have said exactly the same thing as you! I just missed your comment as I was typing. Bretonbanquet 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that the most reliable source is the best one to use. However, when the most reliable source is incorrect, then I do not believe it should be used. I sincerely hope I have shown that my statements are true and that I have provided adequate information to back them up. I suppose the only thing that must be decided is whether we want to give up on having the page correct because we do not have enough sources, or provide the correct information, regardless of the sources. I have given all of the information that I can and I do not believe any of you can refute that I am correct in this instance. It is up to you to decide whether or not to accept the truth.Dale-DCX 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be somewhat arbitrary in your attitude towards this. You believe the most reliable sources to be incorrect, yet as far as I can see, you can only provide sporting regs 20 years too new as proof. Whether or not you believe any of us can refute your argument is irrelevant, and talk of "accepting the truth" is a little inflammatory. I for one am happy with the sources (plural, for there are many) that the rest of us have provided. No doubt others will state their views and we can then act upon a concensus and as usual, we will all act accordingly rather than start an edit war. Bretonbanquet 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, completely disregard me. The only important point here that is important here is that the rules state these drivers should be listed as DNS. The rules I provided were indeed 20 years too new, but there is no doubt that the rule in question was also in place at the time of the Grand Prix in question. Many very reliable news sources regularly write stories with references to Thackwell and also state what I have stated. ESPN cites the rules and I believe you can not really refute their reputation. I may be inflammatory, but I am technically correct. Dale-DCX 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am to change all of the relevant pages now, citing the sources which I have provided. If there are any final objections, please state them now. Dale-DCX 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have really waited longer than 1 minute before starting to make the changes - it's hardly enough time for anyone to object! Anyway, I'm not sure the pages should be changed yet because I don't feel we came to a consensus on this issue. Readro 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt consensus if anything was heading towards RET. The only source that says DNS is Marco Helgert personal website. Oh and Dale-DCX's interpretation of the rules (which would be classed as original research). At least two editors (that is myself and Bretonbanquet) have expressed concern over using Helgert's website over Forix and the official F1 site as a source. I suggest we wait until we can agree on a solution. AlexJ 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted both Mike Thackwell and Derek Daly because a concensus has not been reached here, and as stated by AlexJ, the balance of the discussion here has been towards "Ret" rather than "DNS" based on the sources we have available. To unilaterally edit an article to show one set of opinions to the total exclusion of all others is verging on vandalism. Then to give just a few minutes for anyone's "final objections" is somewhat insulting. For each source cited on the article before I reverted it, I can and will, if necessary, cite a half dozen sources that show a different point of view. At the very least, these articles will show all points of view. I suggest we move fairly quickly towards establishing a concensus to put this matter to rest. Bretonbanquet 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I had waited a rather long time for someone to respond to my post on the 4th of July. No one did so I decided to get to work and actually do something. The problem we have is that the consensus and the sources, will not represent what actually happened. I do not think it fair to history to reject the facts or rules. I am not trying to interpret anything or present my point of view, only the facts. There should be no points of view here, only the facts under the rules. The rules state what I have stated and we should represent that. Dale-DCX 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post on the 4th of July did not invite a response, so you did not get one, I am guessing, and the rest of us are reasonably happy with the articles as they are. No, the problem is that the concensus and the sources do not represent what you think actually happened. What you are trying to do is show the facts only as you see them, refusing to acknowledge other people's view of the facts, and many extremely reliable sources. Given that there are no "official facts", only interpretations as examined here, maybe we should show both interpretations. My personal opinion is that the sources that suggest "Ret" far outweigh what you have provided to the contrary. One thing is that you cannot provide the regs from 1980, but claim to know with no doubt what they contain. The regs from 2000 are irrelevant. Forgive us for not writing articles based on what you say you know. I suggest all other interested parties state their preferences on this, and then we'll edit these two articles, and all the others affected, by the way, which you appear to have no interest in editing. Please allow people more than a few minutes to express themselves, I suggest a few more days. There is no time limit here. Bretonbanquet 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that either we hadn't reached consensus, or that if we had, that it was for RET, not DNS. DH85868993 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another three (two) sources state RET. That is gpracing.net192.com [4], f1db.com [5] and 4mula1.ro [6]. RET is therefore what the large majority of sources state (currently 5 against 1) so is what I suggest we go along with. AlexJ 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are more ways to invite a response than with a question mark... Again, this is not about what I think, this is about what happened. These may be the facts as I see them, but they are most black and white. Also, why should I acknowledge other people's view of the facts? I thought there was no tolerance of points of view here... Sorry I do not have a copy of the 1980 regulations, though I do not exactly see how I should be held accountable for that. I gave the ESPN article as reference to the fact that the 1980 regulations included the annulment and restart regulation. I am not sure why you would think them an unreliable source. So basically we have the knowledge of what the rules stated and I see no reason to stray from the regulations.

A question I asked before, bares the need to be restated. If I contacted the FIA for clarification of the results of the 1980 Canadian Grand Prix, would we be able to cite that as a definitive source? Dale-DCX 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other people do not accept your "facts" as black and white, I'm sure you understand that. But you have to acknowledge other people's view of certain facts that are not clearly defined if you want those people to give your views any creedence whatsoever. Where there are no clearly defined facts, like here, whether you choose to accept it or not, editors take reliable sources and write articles based on them. No original research and no original points of view, only sides to a story based on sources. No-one is holding you accountable for anything, I don't know what you mean by that. The ESPN article is one of many sources given here, why do you believe that it outweighs all others? Just because it agrees with your views? Why do Autosport and FOM not hold the same opinion? Just maybe their research threw up something yours didn't? But if you contacted the FIA and asked them for that, it would certainly help, but they won't, as you know. While you're at it though, ask for results of all the other GPs too. Bretonbanquet 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would contacting them not be OR? Wouldn't it need to be published somewhere official? Readro 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It might well be OR. At the very least there'd have to be a link to a statement by the FIA. It would have to be on the web, or maybe a scan of a written statement would suffice. Let's not forget though, that the official F1 website says "Ret" and that would be more than enough for 95% of wiki editors. Bretonbanquet 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had another read through the ESPN source provided. "Thackwell did not take part in the restart, so he is an anomaly in the record books of being the youngest ever driver to start a Grand Prix who did not actually start the Grand Prix." That to me suggests that the official classification given was Ret. even though it should have been DNS. Even if the rules were wrongly applied, the official result stands and that's what counts. AlexJ 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The ESPN article is primarily important as it cites the regulations regarding this situation in 1980. Other sites simply state his supposed finishing position and do not mention the discrepancy or the regulations. This is a key point. We know what the rules were because of that article. It is just whether you want to apply the result based on the rules and what actually happened or on the results found on other websites which are not necessarily correct in the first place. The problem with the "official" Formula 1 website is that it is not the official source for race results. It is a media and resource outlet licenced by FOM to be the "official" Formula 1 presence on the Internet. It is not the FIA. We do not have an official resource and I think taking the results directly from the regulations would be appropriate. Unfortunately I also suspect the FIA would be unwilling to clarify the situation. Dale-DCX 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't start applying the rules as we believe they should be. Essentially our job is to report what others have found as opposed to act as a news site and create our own interpretation of the situation. To study the rules and decide what should be applied from them would almost certainly be in breach of No Original Research. I still believe that we have enough quality sources to back up the Ret. claim. AlexJ 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if we accept that the 1980 regs would have stipulated a DNS had they been properly applied, we cannot verify that they were properly applied at the time. The FIA aren't saying, and the regular main sources that we use say Ret, which suggests that was the result issued at the time. We are not in a position to retrospectively apply the regs to the race result simply because one or more of us believe they should be. We have to produce something that directly verifies that Thackwell's result for this race was a DNS, which the ESPN source does not do, I believe. Our remit is simply to reproduce the result was it was given at the time - if the regs were not applied properly, then it is definitely not our job to do that now. It would absolutely be OR. Bretonbanquet 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think maybe also adding a note stating that they didn't take the restart would be useful. Readro 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some kind of note across the board for drivers who did not take a restart, regardless of what the rules may or may not have said at the time. It would be straightforward enough, and a good addition to the tables. Bretonbanquet 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Where the information is available, it would be good to record it. As far as Mike Thackwell is concerned, the article should state the facts (hoffentlich more concisely than currently) - he was the youngest to qualify for a GP, the youngest to take a GP start, but may or may not be the youngest to start a GP. -- Ian Dalziel 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Aguri F1

About a week ago, I came across some possible libellous information in the article Super Aguri F1. I wasn't sure, so I raised it on the article's talk page. I didn't get a response there, so I'm bringing it up here. The section Super Aguri F1#The 2007 Season currently states: "Reports suggesting that the team would be using the works Honda chassis of 2006 have come under intense resistance by rival teams Williams and Spyker. This is in fact against Formula 1 regulations, though Super Aguri (as well as Scuderia Toro Rosso) have justified the usage of a customer chassis under various loop-holes in the sport's regulations." (Italics added for emphasis) I think this wording is putting it too bluntly, and it may qualify as original research. I also think it's a stretch to say that this "is in fact against Formula 1 regulations", for one because we don't assert which F1 regulations are involved. The next part, the justification by Super Aguri and Toro Rosso, implies that it might be legal, if only by virtue of not being illegal. It hasn't been established to be against regulations either. If we accuse Super Aguri and Toro Rosso of violating "Formula 1 regulations" or insinuate or imply that they do so (which I think we shouldn't do), I think we should verify this thoroughly. AecisBrievenbus 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that was me sometime ago. I do not see why anything needs to be changed as the information in that article is correct. Their usage of a chassis built by another team is in fact against Formula 1 regulations. Each team entering the Formula 1 World Championship must state that they are indeed a constructor and Super Aguri is not: source. Also a car entered into a Formula 1 event must be of the team's own construction as in line with the Sporting Regulations: Source. I see no reason to sugarcoat the situation, so why not state that the usage of Honda's car by Super Aguri is against the Formula 1 regulations. Which it is.86.157.213.118 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, use of a chassis for which they do not hold the intellectual proerty rights is against regulations, you can have it built by whoever you like. Aguri's own use of ex-Arrows chassis and McLaren's seminal MP4/1 are examples of teams holding IP, but not actually building the chassis in-house. Nothing has yet been proven in court, and if it turns out that Honda have sold the IP for last year's car to SA then they should be fine. Your dogmatic statement is fundamentally flawed. More troubling is the Red Bull/Torro Rosso situation, where it is blindingly obvious that this year the two teams are in fact running the same car. If you had chosen to ride that hobby horse then you might have had a point. Pyrope 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not constructing your own chassis is against the Concorde Agreement as it means you are not a constructor, something which must be if you are to compete as a team in Formula 1. Here is all of the relevant information: Entry Form: We, the Applicant, hereby confirm that we are a ‘constructor’ within the meaning of schedule 3 of the 1998 Concorde Agreement. Concorde schedule 3: A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races, and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis. Sporting Regulations Article 6.3: The constructor of an engine or rolling chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual property rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor. So if we assume that Super Aguri now owns the intellectual rights to the car design, they are still at fault according to the Concorde Agreement. Largely as Concorde states that a chassis must not "incorporate any part designed or manufactured by another constructor". Since Honda designed and (originally) manufactured the car, Super Aguri is at fault even though they now own the intellectual property rights.86.157.213.118 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this, 86.157.213.118. First, Wikipedia is not a court. We don't establish whether teams have violated regulations. That is what the FIA is for. If the FIA finds a team guilty of violating the regulations, we report it. If they don't find a team guilty, there's not much for us to report. Secondly, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Deducing from the regulations that something is in violation of a rule qualifies as original research. The violation has to be established or at least reported/claimed by a reliable source, per our verifiability policy. You may feel they have violated a rule, I may agree with you, but that's not enough for Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to pass judgment, only stating what is, in accordance with the sport's regulations. I did state that technically they are in violation of the rules, which is true. If they are cleared by the FIA then we shall report that. However, that has not happened yet and I believe we should state the current situation. That situation is that they are technically in violation of the regulations. I also do not see how this is original research. It is reading the regulations and stating what they say. If you would like I could state all of the Formula 1 news websites which reported on this, but I think that would be redundant. The violation has been claimed by the teams and they are official sources. I suppose they have done the original research and I am reporting on their work. Also, on a completely unrelated matter, I am no longer anonymous. Dale-DCX 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, Dale. Several teams have claimed that Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were/are in violation of the rules. It hasn't yet been established whether they have indeed violated the rules, were within the rules or simply benefitted from a loophole in the rules. The legal status of the cars is not clear atm, so there is not enough ground to say that the teams/cars are "in fact against Formula 1 regulations." Cows fly kites(Aecis)Rule/Contributions 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As for not cleared by the FIA - it is my recollection that teams raised these objections with the FIA race stewards at the opening races of the season and the stewards threw their complaints out (which provides the FIA's opinion on the matter in my own opinion). I think Spyker then took the case to arbritration? Presumably that's still ongoing. Surely the ingredients of a compromise are here - we say what the rules are, what the status of the various "customer teams" is, the allegations levelled against them regarding legality and the status of Spyker's legal action. Mark83 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The challenge was not dealt with by the stewards as it is not their place. The issue has to be dealt with through the Concorde Agreement, something the stewards are not involved with. I agree with Mark83, we can state that the rules say what they do and technically speaking the team's are in violation of the rules but that the issue is still to be resolved by the team's and the FIA under the Concorde Agreement. Dale-DCX 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot state that the teams are "technically speaking in violation of the rules" because that is original research: interpreting the rules yourself to judge the teams when in fact no binding judgement has been made by an authority on the rules. Only the FIA can determine if they are in violation of the rules, and until they say so, you cannot claim that they are. You can believe through your interpretation of the rules that they are in violation, but you are in no position to claim it with authority, hence it has no place on Wikipedia. The359 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no - if you can find a source or two that says what you have to say, you can add a reference and it can go into Wikipedia. Guroadrunner 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with some outside liegtimate sources you can say that it is believed that they are in violation of the rules, but you cannot claim that they are in fact in violation of the rules. The359 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean technically as a matter of fact statement. I am not interpreting anything, just reading what the rules say. They say in black and white that what the teams are doing is technically illegal. Again though, if there is any original research here, it has been done and is in the accusations made by the other teams. The FIA of course will determine ultimately whether to penalize the teams, but under what the rules state they are in violation. Now it is likely that the teams will face no penalties, but that is beside the point. In a complete black and white no interpretation look at the rules, what they are doing is technically illegal. Yet again though, it is not my research which would be referenced but the team's. Dale-DCX 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That assumes you know exactly what the status of the team's cars is. A more accurate statement would be that what they are accused of doing is illegal. We don't know for sure if what they are doing is what they are accused of doing. Readro 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. We know that Super Aguri is using a car built and designed by Honda. The rules say you can not use a car with parts (an obviously the whole) designed by another constructor. Dale-DCX 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, we do not know the full story of the construction of the SA07, or of the debate over intellectual rights and whether or not Aguri has done something legal or illegal. You can say that Aguri is accused by other teams of breaking a rule about using their own chassis and that the matter is under investigation, but that is it. Your interpretation of the rules and your assumption that Aguri is breaking them are original research, you cannot put them in the article. The359 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We know that the 2007 Super Aguri is a 2006 Honda. We know that Honda designed and built that car. Which means that Super Aguri are using a car built and designed (even if only in part) by Honda. Again, that is clearly against the rules as in black and white they state that a car may not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars. I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean anything other than exactly what it says. Dale-DCX 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, if that's true, find a source from a reputable news source. I've seen hundreds of articles about the whole 'scandal'. Given the choice between the truth and what verifiable sources say, the Wikipedia policy is that we follow the source. That's the way it is. We aren't journalists. It's up to the FIA to interpret the rules and since they have not released anything to suggest that the team is even under investigation, I'd think that its likely that the news sources are right in that the team and the FIA have an understanding in a hole in the rules that allow it. In my opinion I think it's probably something to do with team ownership. But I haven't really a clue. T. Moitie[talk] 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Aguri or Honda ever acknowledging that the SA07 is the RA106. Unless they have, it's an assumption. As for violating the rules, that is not your place to interpret the rules, no matter how black and white they might seem to you, since A) The FIA didn't seem to step right in and say the car is illegal if you claim it is obvious that it is and B) Aguri claims the car is legal. You cannot interpret rules and call a car illegal until it has been deemed such by an authority, no matter what rule or what you believe you understand about it. The359 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Super Aguri is the Honda, arguing about this is just silly and I think you are being overly-confrontational about that issue. Do you really think either would say the car is what it is. In fact, their not saying it is more of a worry than their saying that the cars are the same. Atlas says the SA07 is a development of version of the RA106 and in another article states that only a few aerodynamic elements legitimize the use of the word development. Then if we really want to be technically it is not my research, but the team's and I am only relaying it to everyone here. Again, if we really want to be technical, it is not up to the FIA to decide issues bound by the Concorde Agreement, as it is a legal document apart from the FIA. The FIA however does have the final say to act on things decided by the courts involved. So after a court analysis, then the FIA decides to sanction the teams, which we all know takes some time. Thinking the FIA would act immediately is foolish. Again, I am not stating that the car is absolutely, just technically under the literal meaning of the regulations. Oh dear, I am having to say again far too often. Dale-DCX 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Technically" is up to the FIA to decide. You can claim that other teams believe they are breaking the rules, but no matter how you put it, you cannot say that the team IS breaking the rules until they are proven to be. Anything else is assumption and original research. The359 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact I specifically talked to some other editors and admins a few moments ago regarding original research. You can say that Williams and Spyker and others think the car is the same, you can say that they think the car is illegal as an opinion from a reputable source, but you cannot say that the car IS illegal as a fact because that is original research and based solely on your opinion. You can only say that the car IS illegal once it is proven to be by the FIA. The359 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pleas see the article for the version which I believe to be both appropriate and reasonably correct. Dale-DCX 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Super Aguri (as well as Scuderia Toro Rosso and Red Bull) would seem to be in violation about this." - This statement is both redundant and representing your point of view. The point of view of Williams, Spyker, and other notable sources is all that is needed in the article.

"The FIA however does not have the authority to act on the Concorde Agreement without the matter already being resolved in court." I don't see how the FIA has no authority, considering protests have been filed with the FIA and Spyker even sent a portfolio of what they believe to be copied aero parts between Red Bull and Toro Rosso. You are also going off of an OLD Concorde Agreement, and you do not actually know the specifics of the CURRENT Concorde Agreement, since it is not published.

A point should therefore be made in this place that the FIA is investigating the protest filed by Spyker and Williams, but that no ruling has been made as of yet. The359 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not my point of view, it is what is apparently happening according to the other teams.

2. The FIA can not act with regards to the Concorde agreement as it is seperate from the FIA and is a legal document signed only between teams. The FIA has limited power to act on instances where its rules and the Concorde Agreement are intertwinned as in the entry form which states we are a constructor under schedule 3 of the Concorde Agreement, or something to that effect. I may not now the specifics of the Concorde Agreement, but Autosport is likely to have a very good idea and that information comes directly from them.

3. Agreed. However, it must be maintained that the FIA will only act after the situation is settled under the Concorde Agreement. Which is what they said they would do. Dale-DCX 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. But you've already stated in the same paragraph that other teams believe that, hence it is redundant, especially without the qualifier that it is what some believe, not what all believe.

2. I believe that the fact that Spyker and Williams believe that the teams have no constructed their own cars is the key to the debate, and it is something that the FIA is handling. No other court has been established for this, so where else are these protests and portfolios of technical analysis going, but the FIA? The359 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue has not been taken to court yet, that is why the situation has not been settled yet. The FIA is not responsible for the Concorde Agreement, only for acting on issues which are intertwined and only after arbitration. Dale-DCX 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stepneygate"

To anybody who hasn't seen this story; Ferrari have fired Nigel Stepney and commenced legal action against him and a McLaren-Mercedes engineer named as Mike Coughlan.[7][8]

My question is at what point (if any) does this warrant an article of its own (obviously not titled "Stepneygate"!) At the moment there are few details, however if the allegations turn out to be true it is a major issue - a member of the so-called "dream team" actively working against Ferrari. etc. etc. The alternative is to simply make it a section in an existing article, but which? Stepney's? Ferrari's? - that however would lead to duplication.

As I said, a question for the future. I just thought an early discussion could be useful. Mark83 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If it turns out to be true then I think we should have an article - and then a section in Stepney's and Coughlan's articles will the {{mainarticle}} at the top of the section - Just an idea. Anywa, I believe the most obvious point of National Press using it as a Headline story, or at least Headline it in the Sports pages. Perhaps I misheard, but isn't this already Front Page material in Italy? --PhilltalkEditsReview this GA review! 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ITV F1 said last weekend that the Stepney investigation was front page news alone - that was before he was fired and Coughlan was suspended. Mark83 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a paragraph into the 2007 British Grand Prix article. I think that's all it needs really, except a little copy editing when the events have played out. It has already been released that the search warrant has turned up a positive and Scuderia Ferrari have fired the engineer in question.[9][10]T. Moitie[talk] 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Honda are now "involved" in this too. I suggest the subject requires its own article - or else the same information is duplicated and needs to be updated on Nigel Stepney, Mike Coughlan, Scuderia Ferrari, McLaren, Honda... and maybe more. Also for an event such as this - just adding a paragraph to the most recent GP article is not a logical way of covering events. Mark83 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's all it needs. I'm saying what I've done in the race article is all that the race article needs. I agree with you, its obvious this event should be covered in detail on either the Nigel Stepney article or on its own article. What would you call the article though? T. Moitie[talk] 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were saying that covers it. My mistake.

I don't think the Nigel Stepney article is enough - especially with the involvement of Honda. The whole issue is getting complicated, and Ron Dennis has suggested the "next 48 hours" will present evidence to show McLaren is totally innocent -- This suggests someone has concrete evidence that some player in this controversy is guilty. All these articles should use summary style with a {{main}} link to the article. As for title, I'd suggest "2007 Ferrari espionage allegations." I'm open to other suggestions. I'll go ahead with an article, probably tomorrow. We can always rename it later. Mark83 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick with just Nigel Stepney simply because he is the key to this whole thing and is the only one charged I think. The359 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as I understand it Stepney and Coughlan are equally accused by Ferrari. At the very least the two top teams of F1, Honda and two senior figures in Ferrari and McLaren are involved. Going by current information Stepney and Coughlan are equally implicated (by both the Ferrari legal action and Honda's press release stating the two approached Nick Fry about jobs) therefore choosing the Stepney article as the "main" article seems strange. Furthermore we do need a "main article" - as the Ferrari/McLaren pages will get overloaded (i.e. contrary to summary style). Mark83 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should avoid putting too much information on the Scuderia Ferrari (84kb) and McLaren (60kb) pages because they already have too much information on them as it stands. I think we should wait over the next 48 hours to see who the controversy turns out to revolves around, and then make a decision. If it revolves around Ferrari or McLaren (or another team); or if it revolves around multiple personnel then I say that we should make its own page, but if it revolves around a certain person, we'll regret it if we've created a whole article. T. Moitie[talk] 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If it revolves around a team it needs its own article (as you suggest regarding size). However Ferrari raised the issue so I can't see them being at fault. And have you read Ron Dennis' quotes from today - they aren't the words from a guy who is worried about his organisation being embarrassed, they are the words of a man who would appreciate a few apologies when "the truth" comes out. That suggests it's either Stepney or Coughlan who are to blame. I repeat there is too much duplication - we need a "main" article. But I am happy to wait if that is the consenus. Mark83 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of the points raised above. This issue involves too many people and too many teams to add the information to one existing article. Stepney is a key player, but so are others. McLaren, Ferrari and Honda have been mentioned in connection to this case. I would prefer writing a new article about this subject, 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, or something to that extent. AecisBrievenbus 13:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, with several different opinions here, lets have a consensus on whether we should have a new article: Davnel03 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. This is not something to be voted on. If there are seven people with position A and two with position B, but the two with position B have rock solid arguments, we go by B. We should discuss and indicate where we stand, which is what is going on above. AecisBrievenbus 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. I agree, I think the agreement that we had above is the current consensus and we shall wait till after the Grand Prix to see what actually develops to make a decision. T. Moitie[talk] 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Standings after Grand Prix

Several race report articles, e.g. 2004 Bahrain Grand Prix, have recently had a (points) "Standings After Grand Prix" section added. Do we think this is useful/desirable information to include in the race report articles? I ask because in many cases, when these sections are added, the constructor links are poorly formed. I'm happy to fix the links if we think the information is useful, but would rather not invest the effort if it's just going to be deleted later anyway. DH85868993 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One benefit I can see is that a reader can see how the championships stood at that point and how things changed (or not) by the end of the season. The only other way to figure this out is to go to the season summary and do the maths. Is that a good enough reason to keep the sections? Mark83 03:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

True - major changes in fortune, e.g. top few drivers changing WDC position/drawing level etc. is probably deep enough and that can be written in prose. Mark83 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. It's not necessary beyond the top 3. Constructors not necessary. What would be better would be to make a visual chart with all of the standings positions and apply that to the page. It would depict the movement over the season of how many points they have. Guroadrunner 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Davnel03

Please note that Davnel03 has made an unblock request which – to my mind, unfortunately – is apparantly being taken seriously. Normally I wouldn't trouble a project page with Wiki-minutiae, but I feel that this user, or one of his many sockpuppets, has had a detrimental effect on the aims and effectiveness of this project in the past, and that members who have had to deal with him should be kept fully informed. That is all. Pyrope 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have previously stated on my talkpage, I sincerely apologise for my actions in the past. However, I would like to put that behind me, and talk about editing articles here on Wikipedia. To show that I want to become a good editor of WP:F1, I have already made this edit to the 2007 French Grand Prix article. Thank you. Davnel03 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been working with Davnel03 today on some race reports and I can say that so far he has not been a pain at all, in fact he's been a real help. So I think that we can assume he has changed for the better and any users worried about him can relax. T. Moitie[talk] 16:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

90% of the time he was fine. It was the 10% when he was foul and abusive that was the problem. I'm reserving judgement. Readro 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider this a constructive edit. Considering the qualifying results table was being discussed on the talk page, and seemed to be fine to other editors, it's rather uncalled for to remove the entire thing in one bold sweep without bothering to read, let alone participate in the discussion, regardless of whether or not the table was necessary. The359 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Any user who wishes to oppose this unjustified reinstatement may wish to endorse the RfC page I have lodged in regard to the decision. Your choice. Pyrope 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a point of view regarding Davnel, please endorse something somewhere on the discussion page. I'm getting utterly fed up with this. Yet another group of admins all jumping to the defence of the indefencible, just to support one of their own. If this is how Wikipedia is run then you are welcome to it. I have enjoyed my time here, but the reappearance of Davnel and the attitude of the responsible (ha!) admin has drained all the joy out of this site for me. If the idiot Davnel is going to be foisted back onto us by a cabal of morons then I simply can't afford to care about this project. I do really care about how you guys all get on in the future, and I may swing by now and again to see how you are getting on and maybe drop an article in on something historic, but to fight for the day to day welbeing of WP:F1, in the teeth of admin idiocy, and to know that a significant part of my time in future might be spent firefighting in the wake of one, single, disruptive individual is something that I just can't stomach. I do this for fun. We don't get paid. Why should I log on on my evening off with a heavy heart wondering what crap has been done that day? I'd just like to say, here and now, thanks to all of you who have made this site fun to be around. Readro, DH, The359, AlexJ, Phill, Diniz, Bretonb, oh so many, sorry if I haven't mentioned you, thank you all. But I want to write about F1 and motorsport in general, not run around trying to put right what some tit puts wrong, and then denies all responsibility for it. Please don't think that my resigning is precipitate, I was seriously close to doing so just before we managed to expunge this Davnel cancer last time. Sadly Wikipdia seems to have colluded in its own relapse. There are a few proto-pages lying in my sandboxes if anyone fancies taking them on (access through my userpage), but I'm going to put my time into my real life and do something enjoyable instead. I'll be at the Silverstone Classic in a three weeks if anyone actually fancies chatting about racing cars, probably over a beer or two, but this is me signing off here. The best of luck to you all, and for those of you who do, keep up the good work. Pyrope 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Pyrope, please don't go. You are a valuable contibutor to the project.

2) I personally have no problem with Davnel except for the page vandalisms when he got pissed off. That one, well you owe me and a few others an apology.

2 articles up for FA status and an apology

Another thing. About a month ago, after one of my blocks was rejected, using my IP address, I vandalised several WP:F1 guys articles, along with this talkpage, and insulted Phill. I sincerly apologise for my actions then, and will try and keep my temper under control in future. Phil, and the other WP:F1 guys I apologise also for the personal insults I made about you. Thank you. Davnel03 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Future of Formula One up for deletion

The Future of Formula One article has been nominated for deletion by user:Kingboyk on the basis that "Unencyclopedic and mostly original research. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.".

I've never been terribly at ease with this article; it requires constant updating and is prone to OR (although I don't agree that it is entirely unencyclopedic). If we want to keep the article we need to do something about it in the next four days (or ask for a stay of execution, I suppose...). Cheers. 4u1e 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given that Kingboyk didn't (as far as I know) tell anyone that he had nominated the article, I think it would be reasonable to ask for the five days to start from now, at the very least. Cheers. 4u1e 13:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With a PROD, you don't need to tell anyone; that's just a courtesy thing. Guroadrunner 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd still argue that if you prod a longstanding, lengthy and fairly frequently edited article without informing the project that it 'belongs' to, you run every risk of deleting it before anyone even knows you've put the tag on! 4u1e 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Most of the prods I have done are for orphan articles, for nonsense articles or other things that were created and left untouched. Guroadrunner 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - challenged the prod and removed notice from page. As a challenged prod, the next step is to make it an AFD. Guroadrunner 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article was created yesterday, and with the 2011 season four years away, isn't it a little early for this article? I was going to PROD it, but given my current reputation, I thought better not to. Do you think it should be deleted? Davnel03 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommend killing it for now via a PROD (not an AFD because people on AFD don't always understand F1 and might delete the 2010 and 2009 pages).

Reason, in part, is because the season schedule is not even announced. Guroadrunner 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The season schedule for 2010 isn't announced. I think we should delete and merge 2009, 2010, and 2011 into Future of Formula One and remove anything too speculative (in Future of Formula 1 and the 3 articles), keeping only the verifiable information. T. Moitie[talk] 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice, and quite correct handling from the official! John Anderson 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New Template been created

While looking scurrying through several F1 articles, I came across this template which was created on July 7:

(Template since deleted)

Does the template serve anything new than the templates that we already have on this project? Davnel03 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've shrunk it from whatever em it is to 56. However, it's kind of large. I'd cut it from 1990, to 1995-today. Guroadrunner 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it's 1990-today. It seems fairly arbitrary. I could understand having one for each decade but anything else would feel like having a template for the sake of it. Readro 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question we need to ask is how people want/need to navigate between race report articles. The current navigation box at the bottom of each race report supports navigation to the previous and next running of the same race, and the previous and next World Championship race. I frequently navigate to the next Championship race (and to a lesser extent, the previous Championship race) when editing, so I would be keen to retain that functionality. I don’t often find myself navigating to the previous/next running of the same race. Advantages of the current template include: it’s a single template; it doesn’t occupy much screen space; it supports navigation to non-Championship events. Disadvantages include: it needs to be customised for every individual race report BUT that work has already been done for all the past events, so that’s not too much of a problem. Alternative race report navigation schemas include:

A single (huge) template listing all 768 Championship races (to the end of 2007). Advantage: you can navigate to any Championship race from any other. Disadvantages: the amount of screen space occupied; loss of the ability to navigate to non-Championship races.

Three large templates, each listing 250-300 races (obviously you would break them on season boundaries). Disadvantage (in addition to those already listed): If the current race is near the start or end of a template, navigation in one direction is limited.

Six smaller templates; one for each decade, as mentioned by Readro

A template for each event and one for each season, e.g. 2007 French Grand Prix would include the "French Grand Prix" template (which lists all instances of the French Grand Prix and the "2007 season" template, which lists all the 2007 races. This is what they have on the Finnish Wikipedia for example) Disadvantage: Requires many more templates (but note that they don’t have to be customised for each individual race report); if the current race is the last race of the season, you can’t navigate to the first race of the next season (and vice versa).

Some sort of "clever" template, which works out and displays the previous 9 and subsequent 9 Championship races (i.e. so you always have at least a whole season’s worth). I’m not sure how easy this would be to do.

Note that I'm not actually proposing any of the alternatives; I'm happy with the current navbox. Thoughts? DH85868993 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Or something like that. And you don't need to change any of the race reports, just the template. --Sporti 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Prix

I have noticed that several pages do not list the correct results for drivers, cars and/or constructors in the 2005 United States Grand Prix. Some are correctly labeled as DNS while others are incorrectly labeled as RET. I have been busy correct all of the Michelin entries to DNS, to ensure all of the relevant articles provide the same result. This also meant adjusting the number of races competed in for drivers, cars and constructors on the 2005 season page. I hope I have caught all of them, though if anyone comes across an article which does not have the correct results I would appreciate if you could modify it. Dale-DCX 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming, of course, that DNS is "the correct result". I'm not sure that's universally accepted. www.formula1.com, for one, lists the results of the Michelin runners as "Ret". I've tried to check www.fia.com to see what they say, but I can't seem to access it at the moment. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for the Project to establish a consensus on this topic. DH85868993 10:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the 2005 USA Grand Prix, the ITV Sport Guide for the season refers to the withdrawals as retirements (R) and the official F1 website (www.formula1.com) refers to them also as retirements (Ret). Retired is the correct way of putting things I think, because it was a mechanical issue (unsafe tyres) that forced everyone to withdraw, and at any other time of a race, this would be referred to as a retirement. Lradrama 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they didn't really start the race did they, so one could say that "DNS" could be an option as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skully Collins (talk • contribs).

They didn't start the race so they should be listed as DNS in my opinion. Readro 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No I suppose not, but I always think it's best to go along with the flow, to avoid confusion. Either can apply just as well I think, but seen as every other professional source classes them as retirements, why do we have to be different? Lradrama 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how there can be any confusion. There was one official start, and none of the Michelin runners took it or had took part between the lights going out and the chequered flag falling. DNS would be the correct thing here but we'd need to get a source. The FIA site seems to be down at the moment, but the official classification for this race is on there so I say we should go with that (I can't see it saying Ret. but if it does then we'll go along with it). AlexJ 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the site and it says Ret, but in the retirement reason column it says "Withdrawn" which does not fit with a retirement. Trulli and Raikkonen weren't awarded any points, so imho it should say DNS. Readro 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The event certainly was not a typical Grand Prix and I would imagine the confusion comes from this. If it were any other race and if it was only a single team, there is no doubt they would be listed as DNS. It could also give "withdrew" as a note. Unfortunately I suspect the rather volatile political nature of this Grand Prix prompted a more neutrally phrased result. The fact is that the drivers, teams and cars took part in the weekend and then did not start the actual race. This classifies as DNS. If the result were to be retired, that would have meant that they took the start but later dropped out of the event. That did not happen. Also, the 7th and 8th place drivers would have taken points had they retired. They did not receive points so they could not have retired. Unfortunately I think we may have trouble sourcing this, but the correct result is without doubt DNS. Dale-DCX 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely if you can find a source that says something like "none of the Michelin runners started the race", then wouldn't that be enough to put DNS? I'd imagine there's rather a lot of sources like that about. Readro 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly agree. Unfortunately many of the users in this community only wish to use the results from Formula1.com and I suspect they may object if we do not. There is no doubt we would be able to find countless sources to verify their non-participation but will that be acceptable? Dale-DCX 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to mention then that the "official" results do not follow precedent. Although I disagree with using f1.com as the official site for anything other than FOM stuff. Just because FOM own the broadcast rights and whatnot doesn't mean their website is more accurate than Forix or any other stat site. The official site is FIA.com - if it has results then they're what we should be using - even if it's inconsistent with past results (these cases should be noted).--Don Speekingleesh 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Forix says DNS and that should be good enough. It's possible that some of the confusion arises from the concept that the warm-up lap is part of the race, but if a driver completes the warm-up lap and then fails to take the proper start, it seems ridiculous to say he retired. A couple of side notes - I don't know anyone in this community who wants only to use results from www.Formula1.com; and also the 7th and 8th place drivers would not have received points had they been classed as retired, since they did not complete enough race distance - they'd have been NC. Bretonbanquet 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say Forix is a reliable enough source as well. The warm-up of course is not part of the race as the race is only after the start and the formation lap is before the start. I was referring to my issue with other certain DNS and members stating that only Formula1.com should be followed as it is official, though it is actually far from it. You are incorrect when you state retired drivers do not receive points. As long as they driver finishes within the points paying positions, regardless of how many laps down he is or even if he is retired, he still receives points. See the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix for support. Dale-DCX 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

However in Monaco 1996 all the point scoring drivers were classified ie did more than 90% of the winner's laps. I don't think non-classified drivers can score.--Don Speekingleesh 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Salo and Hakkinen had retired, but had completed enough of the race to be classified. If a driver has not completed enough race distance, he is not classified, whether he is 3rd or 13th. If a driver is not classified, he can score no points. Bretonbanquet 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, from FOM websites' rules & regs. section: "Once all cars have safely taken up their grid positions at the end of the formation lap five red lights will appear in sequence at one-second intervals. These red lights are then extinguished to signal the start of the race." That clearly reads that the 2005 USGP had not started when the Michelin runners pulled into the pits. On the note about "members stating that only Formula1.com should be followed as it is official", I'm pretty sure all of the regular contributors to this WP do not take this viewpoint, and acknowledge that there are errors in it. It's just in the particular case you referred to it was one of several websites to take the same view. AlexJ 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, silly me not reading all of the information. Sorry. Dale-DCX 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive TOC

Do people think it would be useful to have a TOC for the archive pages? (I find that I usually can't be bothered searching through all 8 pages to see whether something has already been discussed). I'm happy to generate the TOC, but I won't invest the effort if people don't think it would be useful. -- DH85868993 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Race report references

As many of you will know, most (all?) of the F1 race report articles don't provide references for the contents of the results and qualifying tables. Every now and then, someone (usually not a member of WP:F1) will come along and add an {{unreferenced}} template to one of the race report articles. What usually then happens is that the template is deleted, on the basis that "this race report is no more or less referenced than all the others" (see the recent edits to 1966 French Grand Prix as an example). I'm wondering whether that's a valid approach - why isn't it legitimate to ask that the race reports contain references for the information in the results tables? The information must have come from somewhere in the first place (www.formula1.com?). And yes, I realise that adding references to all the race reports would involve a non-trivial amount of effort. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were originally automatically or semi-automatically generated from the Formula1.com results. They should be sourced on the same basis as everything else on Wikipedia, although for the bare results sourcing is trivial for each article as it can probably be a one liner at the bottom of the page saying 'All results are taken from....'. I agree that doing that for all the race results is not trivial, although it will be fairly mechanical. There is another problem in that the 'official' formula1.com results are sometimes wrong, which would require the use of another source to justify why ours differ from the 'right' ones. Cheers. 4u1e 17 April 2007, 12:43

Job for a Bot? It should be fairly trivial to get a robot to put a line saying "All results taken from from www.formula1.com" or something similar as the last line under the 'Classification' heading. Then it would be a case of finding which reports don't match and changing the reference. AlexJ 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we could probably get away with saying "All results taken from from www.formula1.com" whether we've subsequently changed them or not. I'd be really surprised if somebody went to the trouble to do a comparison. DH85868993 12:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it's a question of getting away with it! :) But at the least if we gave the standard wording for all of them, it would be a great improvement on having nothing and further refinements are another of those jobs that could be done later. Can a bot do this? We ought really to link to the source as well - I think the formula1.com site results are named in a logical manner, so it might be possible to so that through a bot as well. 4u1e 17 April 2007, 13:55

The note that's found at the bottom of articles such as Tom Pryce, Damon Hill etc. would be sufficent IMO (that is with a link to www.formula1.com/archive/ ) The season pages are of the form www.formula1.com/archive/season/YYYY.html but the race results themselves have an only partially sequential 3 digit-code. A bot can probably get the year easily but not the actual race report. The bot would just need to replace YYYY with the first 4 characters of the article title, which would seem fairly trivial and then add it into the article under the ==References== heading. Linking to the year page would be good enough IMO. AlexJ 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a template in my sandbox that can be subst'd into the page to save time. Just specify the url and it'll create the entire reference section for you. e.g.{{subst:User:Readro/Sandbox|url=http://www.formula1.com/archive/grandprix/1950/379.html}}Readro 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started adding references for the race report articles (thanks for your template Readro, although I'm actually using a modified copy - I've "hardcoded" the date otherwise it was embedding date codes into the articles and they kept updating!). The References section looks a bit ugly where there's an explicit reference for a divergence from www.formula1.com - see 1951 Italian Grand Prix as an example. If anyone can think of a neat solution for such articles, I'd be interested. -- DH85868993 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way around that would be to use a properly annotated and footnoted table, as per this table. Also, I have a couple of minor issues with the format used so far: firstly that we shouldn't be substringing items from user sandboxes (if the template is useful then make a proper Template), and secondly that the reference should be made using the Template:Cite web pro forma. Pyrope 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've had another go at referencing the 1950 and 1951 race reports. Have a look at 1951 British Grand Prix as an example. Points to note:

I've updated the www.formula1.com reference to use Template:Cite web, as per Pyrope's suggestion.

I'm only claiming that the race results are taken from www.formula1.com. If/when qualifying information is added, that will need a separate reference.

Even though www.formula1.com includes the fastest lap time, I've provided a separate reference from Lang, because www.formula1.com always quotes the fastest lap time to an accuracy of 0.001 seconds, which is just not correct for the early 50s!

Restarted races

For restarted races, there is some disagreement over whether the result for drivers who didn't take the restart should be "DNS" or "Retired". I'd like to establish an agreed position within the project, in the hope of avoiding discussions like that currently in progress on Michael Schumacher's talk page. I've established a table of all the restarted WDC races (that I could think of!) and recorded the position taken by a few of the major online results sources. It seems as though there's general agreement over the 1976 German, 1978 Italian, 1982 Canadian and 1987 Austrian events, so the only ones we need discuss are the 1973 British, 1998 Belgian, 1999 British and 2005 United States GPs (I realise the 2005 US GP wasn't restarted, but there is still some disagreement over whether the Michelin runners Retired or DNSed). The table was compiled from memory, so feel free to add any races I've missed. DH85868993 11:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a competitor took the original start then it should be "Retired". If a competitor did not take the original start then it should be "DNS". Putting DNS if a competitor took a start is a bit misleading I think. Readro 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If a driver fails to make it to the start of the race that counts then it should be a DNS. Sure make a note that he failed to complete the formation lap, or took the first start, but it should be a DNS. (2005 is an exception (for political/contractual reasons I'd say) - not finishing the formation lap should be a DNS - see Schumacher, France 1996, but the FIA decided to go against precedence and call them Ret, and I think a note to that effect should be in the Indy article.)--Don Speekingleesh 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the various positions are opinions. Does anybody know the FIA or FOA/FOM position? And if they do surely that should be our policy too. Mark83 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, www.formula1.com claims to be the "Official Formula 1 Website", so I guess that (for past races), their position is the "official" one. I'd be comfortable for Wikipedia to maintain consistency with www.formula1.com on this issue. I'm also in favour of adding notes to results tables ("car failed on the formation lap", "took part in the first start but not the restart", etc). DH85868993 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:200 US GP. I don't care what the FIA might be saying to preserve their reputation, the Michelin runner were all DNS. To be present at the start of a race you have to be on the grid (or starting from the pits) when the lights change (or flag drops, in years gone by). They weren't. Pyrope 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there can be differences between the FIA and the FOM at times, in which case the FIA results have to be the ones to be used. But the FIA archive only goes back a few years I think. And in the case of Silverstone 1998 f1.com says Ret, but for Spa 98 it says DNS. So even the so called offical site can't be consistant...--Don Speekingleesh 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was proposing that on this issue (i.e. DNS or Ret for restarted races (plus the 2005 US GP)), Wikipedia should maintain consistency with www.formula1.com on a race-by-race (even result-by-result) basis, even though www.formula1.com itself doesn't seem to have a consistent "policy". Note that I'm not suggesting blanket consistency with www.formula1.com, since the site definitely contains errors. DH85868993 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problam is that not all race restarts are the same. In some cases the first race is simply voided, as though it never happened (e.g. 1976 German Grand Prix, where Niki Lauda etc ought really to be shown as DNS) and the results are based solely on the restarted race. At other times the race is restarted and the results are a time aggregate of the two (e.g. 1994 Japanese Grand Prix), and other systems have been used. With reference to the '76 German race, this is a good instance of the "official" site being unreliable, as it shows the second race non-starters as all being Ret on lap 0, which is cobblers. We should be about accurate information, and a blinkered adherence to one published source is a very bad idea. Pyrope 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the 2005 USGP should be recorded as a DNS for all the Michelin runners. Formula1.com's rules & regs section says "Once all cars have safely taken up their grid positions at the end of the formation lap five red lights will appear in sequence at one-second intervals.These red lights are then extinguished to signal the start of the race." That seems to say quite clearly if they weren't competing at the time the red lights were extinguished or at any time after the lights went out but before the race finished, then they didn't start the race. The race doesn't start on the formation lap. AlexJ 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. USGP 2005 was a DNS for all Michelin runners as they didn't take the start. Readro 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More potential fields for F1 driver infoboxes

Do we want to add "Front row starts", "Laps raced" "km raced", "Races Led" "Laps led" and/or "km led" (or anything else) into the F1 driver infoboxes? As part of my quest to attain consistency between List of Formula One drivers and the individual driver articles, I'm updating the infobox of pretty much every F1 driver article, so if there extra fields we want to add, now would probably be a good/convenient time to do it. DH85868993 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also (at the risk of creating even more work for myself), I've seen some infoboxes where, if the value of a particular field is 0, the driver's best achievement in that regard has been added in brackets, e.g.:

Wins: 0 (best finish: 5th)

Pole positions: 0 (best grid position: 10th)

Would we like to see kind of thing for all drivers? Or is that overkill? DH85868993 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no and no. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an exhaustive database of all F1 info. If you are a stats nerd then you probably aren't looking to Wikipedia anyway. We should be concentrating on writing good, readable, informative and interesting articles, not compiling a complete career summary for every driver ever. The fields you suggest add very little to a driver's history for all except dedicated F1 fans, and arguably they aren't who we should be thinking of first when we edit. For those who are just after entertaining and informative articles, that kind of information just serves to obscure rather than illuminate. If a driver holds some interesting record in those regards (e.g. driver to have led most laps without ultimately winning a Grand Prix) it should go as a note in the text. I can see that a driver's best finish might be a good note for an infobox (but made using <small></small> tags), but too many will just clutter and confuse. Pole position starts are, honestly, a minor part of a driver's record, so a best start note is even less important. I think if you asked any driver whether they would prefer a win or ten pole positions, they would take the win every time. Pyrope 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Driver/constructor summary table notes

As many will know, in driver/constructor career summary tables, pole positions are indicated by highlighting the race in bold and fastest laps are indicated using italics, with a note above the table explaining what the bolding and italics mean. But I'm wondering what we should do in the case where the driver/constructor has scored no pole positions and/or fastest laps - should we remove the note (because it's "irrelevant"), or should we leave the note there, to highlight the fact that no pole positions/fastest laps were achieved (noting that this information can also be gleaned from the infobox)? DH85868993 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have generally been removing notes that aren't applicable (although I probably missed a couple!). I think they only serve to confuse. Pyrope 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Williams articles?

What do people think of the idea of merging Frank Williams Racing Cars ("FWRC") and WilliamsF1? I'm aware that the two are distinct entities, and I'm familiar with their respective histories. But having them as separate articles seems inconsistent with the way we've handled Honda F1 and Renault F1, where we've described the exploits of quite disparate organisations in the same article. (I would suggest that FWRC and WGPE/WilliamsF1 are more closely related than the Renault team of the 70s/80s and today's Renault-nee-Benetton, or the Honda team of the 60s and today's Honda-nee-BAR.) Further, I think the separation of the results tables might prove confusing to the casual browser. I can imagine someone viewing WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results asking themselves "Why do the model numbers start at FW06? What happened to FW01 to FW05?" I'm aware that the WilliamsF1 article is already quite large, and that merging in the content of the FWRC article would make it even larger (although a small amount of the existing text could be removed).

An alternate approach would be to leave FWRC and WilliamsF1 as separate articles, but to combine the results tables into a single article (with clear delineation between the two teams, as is done in Renault F1).

Note that I'm not passionate about seeing the articles merged, but I do think it makes sense to combine at least the results tables.

I don't agree about merging the results or articles, they're quite separate entities, with FWRC going on to become Walter Wolf Racing (why not merge it with that! ;-)) and then merging with Fittipaldi Automotive (or that :D)! The only connection is the Frank Williams owned them both, and some personnel (Patrick Head at least, but I'm not sure about anyone else) moved from one to the other. I think any confusion can be addressed with an explanatory note. What do others think? 4u1e 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, but felt it was only fair to note the way two sources have handled this:

David Hodges A-Z of Formula racing cars covers FWRC and WGPE/F1 under the single heading of Williams, although the Iso-Marlboro, Politoys and Wolf-Williams cars are covered under separate headings.

Doug Nye's Autocourse History of the Grand Prix car 1945 - 1965 also covers FWRC and WGPE/F1 under the single heading of Williams. He has no separate section for Iso-Marlboro or Politoys, but the Wolf-Williams FW05 is covered under Wolf, not Williams.

To my mind those separations make no sense. I suspect it's because when I think of a team I'm thinking of the entrant, but both books are focussed on the cars, and are therefore interested in the constructor - almost, but not quite the same thing. Am I covincing anyone? 4u1e 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am of course amenable to persuasion! To be fair, I can't find another source that does it the way we do! It just makes no sense to me (yeah, that's right, we're the only ones in step...) 4u1e 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a continuous work, even if Frank Williams had to found a new team. Renault had a team, withdrew, and then bought Benetton and still the article is the same for both. Honda also had a team, withdrew and came back 36 years later and it's considered the same team here! Why don't we vote it in Williams' discussion page? Fsarmony (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Nationality

The issue of UK Nationality has been raised again, this time by Mais Oui at Jackie Stewart and David Coulthard. His contention is that both drivers are well attested to be Scottish and that WP:MOSBIO states that the nationality should be stated in the intro and that Wikiprojects have 'zero jurisdiction to dictate a person's nationality'.

My personal view is that neither argument is valid: The lead makes it clear that both are Scottish, and while he is correct about WP:MOSBIO, it's not clear to me that 'Scottish' is actually a nationality in that sense, there being no way of formally telling a Scottish citizen from an English one, or that using the definitely valid British nationality is wrong. There is also of course the reason that we used UK in the first place, which is that it is what the sport's governing body uses and allows us to have a consistent set of sporting results.

I haven't reverted Mais Oui!'s latest changes, because in the spirit of Wikipedia I feel we have to accept challenges to the consensus. I have asked Mais Oui to comment here and I hope he will do so. I'd be grateful if others could comment on whether they feel Mais Oui's points have merit. Cheers. 4u1e 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mais oui! has responded on my talk page, copied here for clarity:

Scottish implies British; however, the reverse is not true. Scottish is most certainly not a description of one's ethnicity. Scotland is a civic nation, not an ethnic one. You say that all the articles already state that they are Scottish, but that is not in fact the case: they say that they are "from Scotland". The English language has a perfectly good, commonly-used word for someone or something from Scotland: "Scottish". At Wikipedia, every other occupation uses it. Why on earth should F1 drivers suddenly be the only ones stripped of their nationality?

Nationality is a quality of something from a nation. That Scotland is a nation, with its own legal system recognised in private and public international law, is well attested. Further, we will have no problem finding references stating the nationality of Stewart or Coulthard as being Scottish. I will add those references if their nationality is brought into question in any way. --Mais oui! 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment If we can use 'Scottish' instead of 'From Scotland' I'm quite happy with that personally. The problem is that passing editors see a British flag (correct) and 'a Scottish' (or English etc) driver (correct) and feel driven to 'correct' one or the other. 4u1e 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Mais oui has changed a number of other articles. 4u1e 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The plain facts are that you CANNOT legally have Scottish Nationality. This term is not recognised by ANYONE including the UK Government, the UN, the EU, the MSA, and the FIA. Race drivers have clearly marked on their race licence their nationality. Scottish is not a term you would EVER find there - all the way from cadet karting to F1 M100 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious compromise; describe the drivers as Scottish in the opening paragraph and list their nationality in the infobox as "British Citizen" as per their passports and FIA rules. Normalmouth 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally happy with that compromise, noting that as I said above, it tended to result in a lot of maintenance in correcting 'helpful' edits. 4u1e 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Legally, Scottish is not a nationality. If we allow Scottish then we'll have to allow Catalan, Basque, Bavarian, Walloon etc. and this will make a mockery of the term "nationality". We have no real justification for overruling a legal definition. Readro 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate has taken place, I assumed it was over. A concensus was reached and all the articles, and there are hundreds, were changed accordingly. If someone wants to contest it, then this is the place to do it, rather than changing a dozen articles before discussing. The original problem was nothing to do with Scotland, more that many drivers were being claimed as English through their biorthplace, without any other criteria being used. This created many false statements of "nationality" and many more which were, at best, questionable. The concensus reached was aimed at removing all possible inaccuracies of this nature, and to reflect the official nationality of all British drivers as recognised by their sporting governing body, and also to reflect the flag they ALL raced under. To start allowing variations on the concensus we reached is to open a can of worms which will render this project a bit pointless. Bretonbanquet 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If one editor can come along and change many articles as he sees fit, going against the concensus of a large number of project members as he is currently doing, can someone please tell me what the hell is the point in all this?? Bretonbanquet 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can see he has no interest in discussion, but can Mais Oui explain why the idea that "Scottish implies British" is remotely relevant to this discussion?? Being from London implies British too, are we to put the flag of London in the infobox? After all, drivers born in London have London passports, and race under the flag of London, don't they? This IS vandalism, but of course, no-one else seems to care. Bretonbanquet 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I care. Until Mais Oui's willing to discuss the issue, it's a bit hard to tell what he means by it. A concensus can always be changed, if the group is persuaded by a new argument. Personally I don't find Mais oui's arguments especially convincing, but my view (and his) are hardly the only ones to be taken into account. I have asked him to discuss here, which he does not seem interested in doing. He seems upset that WP:SCOTLAND wasn't involved in the decision - I have suggested that he might like to direct members of that wikiproject (and the other national projects) here, but he hasn't taken me up on it. I'm reluctant to get into an edit war, but ultimately if a new concensus doesn't emerge then the articles should be changed back to the current concensus. Obviously no-one should break WP:3RR. Let's see what discussion happens over the next few days. 4u1e 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the voice of reason :) You're right.. until he discusses, it's hard to do anything except get into a revert war. I've tried to explain to him that the reason other Wikiprojects were not consulted is that they do not contribute to these particular articles... but still. I think his argument does not add anything to the discussion we all had here some time ago, and the concensus should not be changed.. but we should wait until other members have had their say. Bretonbanquet 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to voice my opinion, I'll give a summary of my comments on 4u1e's talk page. This is an F1 template we're talking about. If we as a project were going round changing introductions to include British and exclude Scottish (in this example) I could see the problem. However we are only talking about the infobox, so we are 100% entitled to claim jurisdiction (if that's the correct term). As such the consensus we have reached - i.e. to follow the protocols of the F1 governing bodies, stands. Now if another consensus emerges that we should ignore protocols of the F1 governing bodies and instead use Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish instead, that's fine. However as it stands the consensus is to keep the status quo. Mark83 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the 5th time or so since being on the WP this has come up, and again there's been nothing to convince me that we should change it. Multiple official sources (FIA, formula1.com, the drivers passport and racing licence) all give the nationality as British and therefore that's what we go with. Unless there's a better argument to use something else, then that's what we use. I'm still of the opinion we should put a small comment above the nationality part of the type <!--Please don't modify the nationality of the driver, as it's been agreed on by the Formula One WikiProject, because British is how it's listed on the official FIA entry list. If you disagree with this guideline, please discuss it on the Formula One WikiProject talkpage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:F1 before changing it.-->

It'll make it clear from the outset as well as putting off some people who change it and then don't want to be proved wrong by anyone. AlexJ 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm cynical about how often that will work, but at least it would mean we'd made all reasonable efforts! There are things going on in other parts of Wikipedia that may affect how we approach this. I chipped into one conversation here earlier today, but again our approach seems entirely compatible with the intent there. 4u1e 17:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it puts off just one or two people, it'd be worth it. Having it there would also remove any chance of the editor claiming ignorance. With regard to the both nationality and flag, our usage is consistent with the FIA entry list and the flags used on the podium - I don't believe there is a better argument than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexJ (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

No, you're right Alex, it will probably help. As things stand at the moment, the Scottish driver articles all have the British flag in the infobox, but have the wording 'is/was a Scottish' racing driver' in the lead. Mais oui! is I guess not going to discuss the issue, he's been asked to a few times but has not commented further than the notes I pasted above, although he has been editing fairly continuously since this debate has been going on and so must be aware of my request for him to join this debate. He has also commented on the pages of several editors involved in this discussion, but only about the rights and wrongs of their reverting him, or him reverting them, and not about the actual point in debate. As Mark83 said above, there's nothing here to suggest that the consensus has changed, so we leave things as they were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4u1e (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Just a technical point here. In the relevant driver articles, the nationality is given as British. These should be amended to from the United Kingdom or such like. Eddie Irvine isn't British but he does come from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think that's normal usage for nationality: My passport, and it is passport nationality that the FIA bases driver nationality on, says 'British citizen'. I imagine Eddie's British passport says the same thing - could one of the editors from NI confirm whether this is the case? Thanks. 4u1e 12:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Going by the Wikipedia article British nationality law, "British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom... Before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality". Therefore as NI is part of the UK, people born in NI are British Citizens. AlexJ 12:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill has responded at the Eddie Irvine talk page with: "Yes, I think you're correct. My interpretation was rather narrowly focussed. If this settles the matter, please reverse my changes. Regards, Bill Reid | Talk 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)". So I guess we're back to the status quo (for the third time this weekend!). 4u1e 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed to see this issue flare up again, but simply to add my voice to the debate I feel the established consensus remains valid. To cite an example closer to my home I would expect to see Andy Priaulx described as a British driver first and foremost and a Guernseyman second (and having just checked his article I'm going to change it there in a second in absence of any debate on the subject). No-one is questionning the importance of anyone's Scottish, Welsh or other heritage. However, it is worth remembering that the nationality that a driver is listed as refers to their home motor sports authority (if I am not mistaken). Therefore no driver can have their nationality officially shown as Scottish, Guernsey or similar since those regions/countries do not have an MSA. Jsydave 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would be OK with Guernsey(an?) being regarded as a separate nationality because it's not part of the UK. Readro 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a crown dependency so while not being part of the UK, Britain has possession of the island. Either way, using our current method of determining where the driver comes from by his race licence, Priaux is British. AlexJ 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Stewart and David Coulthard are both British (or from the UK, if you prefer). If their sport was soccer, they would be Scottish. I suggest, let's write "from the United Kingdom (Scottish)". John Anderson 02:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Imola

There's a corner at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, that currently is called in the circuit map Variante Alta but I thought was called the Variante Alfa. Which is it? An AtlasF1 article [11] and the source I used to create the 1994 circuit layout map, the manual for Geoff Crammonds' F1GP video game (surprisingly detailed for early 90's pre-web F1 info), say Alfa, many other sources including the F1 website [12] say Alta. Wikipedia seems to be mixed with more Alta then Alfa. Your thoughts please. AlexJ 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember of SpeedTV's commentary, they've always refered to it as Variante Alta, even David Hobbs. The359 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always considered it to be Alta, as "Alta" means high, and "Alfa" means alpha/first. The chicane is at the highest point of the circuit, and isn't the first corner. It also goes well with the next sequence of corners, the "Variante Bassa" (low). The Great Encyclopedia of Formula 1 has it as Alta, and I'm sure that's what the commentators call it. However, the 1995 AUTOCOURSE annual (which I happen to have with me) has it as Alfa, so there's definitely a sense of ambiguity. I would still go with Variante Alta, though.--Diniz 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I always believed that I heard Variante Alta. For what it's worth, the 2004 Autocourse has Alta not Alfa. 4u1e 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From the translations, it would seem more likely to be Alta. That also seems to be what the majority of the sources say, including the official F1 website and official Autodromo Enzo... website. I'm happy to go along with that. Another point to do with the '94 San Marino Grand Prix article is Barrichello is listed in the results table as -Accident during practice-. His accident occurred during Friday Qualifying so is it still listed as during practice or should it be changed to -Accident during qualifying-. Also there is a template linking to the F1 portal that seems out of place, any objections to me removing it? AlexJ 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of having links to the F1 portal in the articles came up in a peer review for Brabham (I think) ages ago - it was a suggestion from a reviewer who knew nothing about the topic and thought it was useful as a way in to it. I think they were probably right, but hadn't felt strongly enough about it to push for a general standard. If you think it hurts the article then go ahead and take it out, although I can't see it does any harm, and I'm not sure how else anyone will find the portal! 4u1e 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to the bottom of the article next to the link to the spoken version. It seems better placed there with other links out of the article, rather than being included higher up as part of the article itself. Also, I've removed the Notes section which consisted of the fastest lap. IIRC, this was added by the bot that originally created the race reports. As it's duplicated in the infobox, I see no point in having it as a note as well. Would others agree with that (and should we start to work the fastest lap as a note out of race articles with infoboxes?) AlexJ 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, Imola '94 is going on the front page tommorrow. Could someone have a quick look over it, and check that no mistakes have crept into it over the time between it becoming featured and now. Thanks, AlexJ 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the succession box race reports - both the '94 Race reports before and after Imola are direct copies of grandprix.com - should I delete the race reports and just leave the infobox and classifications? AlexJ 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Unless you feel like writing some really quick articles! Guess those were more of Davnel's work? 4u1e 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick scan over the article and it looks good, I tweaked a couple of minor things. I'll try and keep an eye on it tomorrow - could be one of those topics that will bring 'em out of the woodwork. Good work! 4u1e 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise - I wrote a quick article for the Pacific GP and removed the Monaco GP text (I feel too much went on during the weekend to be able to cover in a quick rewrite). AlexJ 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. Someone helpfully replaced the Monaco words with a suggestion to the effect that they might have been derived from watching the race on TV (?!). I've deleted them again with a specific mention of where they were copied from. shrug. 4u1e 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So that was that then, 154 edits made in all, out of which I think two improvements were made (1 citation and 1 clarification, oh and my maps made in a rush at the weekend were slightly wrong :) 3 improvements). Thanks to all who helped keep a watch on it. AlexJ 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Look at it this way, at least a lot of people read it! (I know the oh so hilarious and witty vandals mostly didn't, but I also picked up a few well meaning, if wrong, changes and I suspect a majority of Wikipedia readers don't edit anyway.) I thought it survived the experience very well. 4u1e 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Results tables

I've got Brabham BT19 up for GA at the moment (does this man do nothing but sleep, eat and drink Brabham, I hear you cry!). The GA reviewer has made a number of good points, but I wanted to run one of them past the project:

"I don't understand the race results table. I think the key should be placed into this article instead of wikilinked. Also, what are the numbers across the top - are those individual races? How do the points work?"

and

"The one thing I still consider to be a major issue is that table of race results. I really think it needs some more explanation. I appreciate that this needs discussion with the Formula One wikiproject. At a bare minimum, I believe the key should be transcluded into the article instead of forcing the reader to go out and open a second page."

I think the point about the key at least is probably a fair one. I produced a dummy of what it would look like here. What do others think? Is this an improvement? It looks a bit big, but wouldn't be very conspicuous compared to the results tables of many drivers and teams. I've got my doubts about listing the points, because the main places these tables are used are in driver and team results, where in many cases the points system will have changed over the period concerned.

While we're on the topic, I've taken a few other liberties with the standard formats in this article:

Inclusion of non-championship results in the infobox

Giving the points scored by that model of car in the results table (Possibly OR, because I've calculated it myself)

Giving constructors championship position for the model of car in the results table. Possibly dodgy because the car didn't compete in all the races, particularly in 1967.

I may have gone a bit far with those last two in particular. <deep shame>. What do others think? 4u1e 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If the key was changed to a 2 column thing, that might work (it becomes an 8-line table then about the same width as the results table). Like you, I'm not sure about including the points breakdown on it though. It's something that's can get too complex to explain as a footnote, but is central to the whole point of Formula One. Wikilink the Points heading to List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems maybe? Non-champ races should go in the table, but perhaps with a asterisk in the table and a note to show they were NC. You mention the infobox as well, do you mean adding NCR to the totals of races entered, race wins etc.? If so, I agree with that also. The last two points, I don't see as being OR (adding numbers together from verified sources does not IMO consitute OR anymore than taking several facts and making a sentence out of them) and they seem to fit in the table tidly. Keep them I say. AlexJ 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a stab at two columns and see what that looks like (I'm not precious about my sandboxes so I don't mind if someone else does it, tables are a matter of trial and error for me!). Wikilinking the points heading sounds like a good compromise. Yes, I've added non-champ and Tasman races to the race and win total elements of the infobox. I've been thinking about putting non-champ races in the table, the question is how to do it. If I include them on the 1966 row, will they not break up the flow and make it confusing? I'll give that go too..... 4u1e 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it will require some re-thinking about the championship round numbers at the top, if NCR are included. However, the table title is complete results, and I feel we should include results of all races the car competed in for completeness. AlexJ 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've dummied up a second version here, with a shorter, wider key, without the points table (but with a wikilink from 'points') and with non-champ results included. I haven't included Tasman results, if I did so it would be in a separate table. I've used small lettering for non-champ races to differentiate from championship races. It looks kind of OK, but the numbers of the rounds at the top are completely messed up, of course. Non-champ races are wikilinked in various ways, the actual results for the '66 International Trophy have an article, so I've linked that direct. The 1966 SA GP and the 1967 Spansih GP don't have articles, but I have red-linked them, I could have linked to the top level GP articles instead, which is what I've done for the Oulton Park Gold Cup. For an alternative approach to non-championship results that I did ages ago see Fittipaldi Automotive. 4u1e 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, it does look a bit confusing with all results in one table. The Fittipaldi method looks slightly tidier, and is clearer to see which races form part of the championship and which don't. Sorry to keep changing my mind, but I think it's important we come up with an acceptable solution that we can standardise and use across the Wikiproject. This just seems a good opportunity to do so. AlexJ 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Fittipaldi version, too. Is there some way of having a hide/show option for the key? That way it can be part of the same article, but without getting in the way for those who know what the table means without needing to refer to it.--Diniz 12:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What! You prefer the Fittipaldi version! After all that effort! ;-) Fair enough. Anyone else got a preference? Regarding hide/show, I thought that's what we used to have. Anyone clever enough to know how such things work? 4u1e 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Regarding the key, I like the two-column version, although I'd probably make it a little smaller, i.e. so the text is the same size as the single-column version.

Regarding points, I like the solution of wikilinking the column heading. (It occurs to me that I probably could have done the same thing, rather than adding a note, in all those articles I updated for "dropped points". Oh, well... )

Regarding the contents of the "WCC" and "Points" columns where not all the points were scored by that particular model, I think there needs to be a note, something along the lines of "Includes points scored by other chassis/models/types [pick one]"

Whilst I recognise the loss of sequence information, I think we need to keep Championship and non-Championship results in separate tables, for several reasons:

The already-mentioned issue about race/WDC round numbers at the top of the table

We already have problems with the width of results tables; adding non-WDC rounds is only going to make them wider. Consider that a full results table for Ferrari Tipo 500 would include 26 races for 1952. (OK, so that's the most extreme example I could think of, but you get the point)

If we include non-WDC results in the results tables for cars, then people could (quite reasonably) ask why we don't do the same for drivers and teams. Which could involve a lot of rework...

Regarding the format for the non-Championship results, I think the "row per race" format (as used in Fittipaldi Automotive) is suitable where there are only a small number of races per year. For cases where there are numerous non-Championship races per year (e.g. 18 in my "Tipo 500" example above), then perhaps the standard results table format would be more suitable. Although we would probably need to come up with an agreed set of abbreviations for non-championship races...

* Regarding points, I like the solution of wikilinking the column heading. (It occurs to me that I probably could have done the same thing, rather than adding a note, in all those articles I updated for "dropped points". Oh, well... ) - I prefer the note, as it explains the reason for the points total in brackets, inside the article, and it would be harder to make the link method work inside the infobox (it would have to go in the template which wouldn't look right for modern drivers.) AlexJ 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. I was only thinking about the note being referenced from the results table; I forgot the note was referenced in the infobox too. DH85868993 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for all your comments. I make the consensus that the revised lower wider (and hence better cornering?) table is better, that if included on the page it should use show/hide, and that a separate table for non-champ results would be better. I also take DH's point, which effectively means that it is unlikely that we can get one non-championship format for all eventualities: 1950s are likely to require a full table like the championship one, while 70s - 80s are probably better off with a short one like Fittipaldi's. I'm trying to get my head around the show/hide thing (see version 3 here). It's horribly hacked together from stuff I don't really understand, and it shows instead of hiding by default. HELP! :D 4u1e 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I 'fixed' the shows instead of hides bit. It's because there's less than 3 collapsable things on the page. To test this, I've added another two copies of the Key to your sandbox (hope you don't mind ;)) and now all three are hidden by default. Of course we don't want 3 of the same thing on the page, so this isn't really a solution, more a problem diagnosed. It all comes from this, specifically that for NavFrame div: It collapses when 3+ and has no custom initial state. Not sure of a way around it, as I believe we'd only have two Navframe type things (the Key and a team linkbox at the end). AlexJ 19:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why it worked in the other sandbox, which had three tables in it when I first tested it. Told you I didn't understand what I was doing. Now, there is a 'collapsible' characteristic which can be applied like this:

Key

Column 1

Column 2

But I didn't get very far with making that one work.... 4u1e 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got a bit further:

Key

Colour

Result

Colour

Result

Gold

Winner

White

Did not start (DNS)

Silver

2nd place

Light blue

Practiced only (PO)

Bronze

3rd place

Friday test driver (TD) - 2003-2007 only

Green

Points finish

Blank

Did not practice (DNP)

Blue

Non points finish inc. non classified finish

Injured or ill (inj)

Purple

Did not finish (Ret)

Excluded (EX)

Red

Did not qualify (DNQ)

Did not arrive (DNA)

Black

Disqualified (DSQ)

I think the only remaining problem with that is that it doesn't use the wikitable css class, so it doesn't look the same as the current version. Anyone know how to fix that? 4u1e 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd swear I tried that, but I'm also sure something wacky's been going on with the hide/show function recently: sometimes it seems not to work on anything (even where it was working before). Now, is the project happy to use that revised version instead of the current key link (we can set up the collapsible table as a template, so as not to take up too much space). 4u1e 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Better? I've put it in the BT19 article as well - being such a short results table does mean that the key is big in comparision, and of course much of the content is irrelevant, but we can't help that if we're ultimately going to use a template for it. 4u1e 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took the plunge and created a template for it at {{F1 results key}}. It's currently being used in the Forti article (where else?).--Diniz 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Just wondering, should we put the key above the results tables, or below them? I'd probably recommend above, to make the key more immediately visible for longer tables. DH85868993 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It would also be easier to replace the current one that way (either by simply renaming the template, or by using a bot). On the other hand, I think it will look rather odd when you expand it, as the results table will 'jump' down a fair bit, and it feels wrong to have the key before the table to which it refers. 4u1e 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - both collapsible tables have stopped working for me, i.e. they are shown in full with now option to hide them. I've also lost the ability to sign my username automatically.--Diniz 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, both functions have started working again - very temperamental!--Diniz 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did we want to include "bold = pole position" and "italics = fastest lap"? DH85868993 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but the table has a default bold setting which I don't know how to turn off for the line of text.--Diniz 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)